Why don't easy fixes to Polymorphing work? [Archive]

johnbragg

2013-10-07, 12:34 PM

The reason polymorph is so powerful is because there are so many creatures. Each one increases the spell's power.

So why wouldn't "one creature-form per spell" work?

As long as there are X sourcebooks full of monsters, any fix will run into some broken combo somehow.

True. But "one spell, one creature" means that the DM has to make that judgement a lot less often--when the character gets new spells, not every time the PC polymorphs/wildshapes.
"It's not in Core, sorry."
"No, there are no Dinosaurs in the campaign region. Wait, you have HOW many ranks in Knowledge Nature, Knowledge Arcana and one rank in Knowledge--Obscure Creatures? Ok, let's start rolling."

That, and it makes 2 of your abilities redundant.

That's true. But would that be such a problem if you were limited to same-size creatures? You have an 8 Str, poof, now you're a Medium-size animal with Str 19. But you're not a Large Animal with 29 Str.

Unless you cast Enlarge Person first? Then your large Wildshape could only sustain for 1 min/level?

That's why the "balanced" fixes - like the PHB2 Druid and, and the Beast Shape from PF - explicitly don't base themselves on the stats and powers of the creature you're imitating, instead giving you flat bonuses, even if you can choose how some are allocated.

Psyren

2013-10-07, 12:44 PM

So why wouldn't "one creature-form per spell" work?

It would, but it's also not very fun. Shapeshifting is the toolbox discipline - "I need to swim - aquatic form! I need to climb - monkey/cat form! I need to fly - bird form!" Making one spell for each of those is certainly a thing one could do, but I think PF got it more or less to where it needed to be.

eggynack

2013-10-07, 12:49 PM

That's true. But would that be such a problem if you were limited to same-size creatures? You have an 8 Str, poof, now you're a Medium-size animal with Str 19. But you're not a Large Animal with 29 Str.

A lack of access to large creatures restricts beat stick forms somewhat, but it doesn't do as much to stop defensive forms. Desmodu hunting bats, for example, are already one of the best flying forms in the entire game, and they're medium. It's my general opinion that you don't even really want to beat stick about as a druid, because your other abilities fill that role so well. In that way, dexterity is better than strength, and you can get a hell of a lot of it.

Story

2013-10-07, 12:51 PM

True. But "one spell, one creature" means that the DM has to make that judgement a lot less often--when the character gets new spells, not every time the PC polymorphs/wildshapes.
"It's not in Core, sorry."
"No, there are no Dinosaurs in the campaign region. Wait, you have HOW many ranks in Knowledge Nature, Knowledge Arcana and one rank in Knowledge--Obscure Creatures? Ok, let's start rolling."

You can easily pump your knowledge checks high enough to know about every creature that exists. Wizards do it pretty much automatically anyway. Keep in mind that these are people who can memorize entire libraries in a day or chat with the gods themselves. They are not only smarter than the smartest person who has ever lived, they are so much incomprehensibly smarter that they make real life geniuses look like idiots.

Meanwhile, the one creature per spell restriction just limits versatility in the case of Sorcerer and adding a gold tax in the case of Wizards.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-07, 12:53 PM

That's why the "balanced" fixes - like the PHB2 Druid and, and the Beast Shape from PF - explicitly don't base themselves on the stats and powers of the creature you're imitating, instead giving you flat bonuses, even if you can choose how some are allocated.

And Aspect of Nature (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#wildShapeVariantAspectOfN ature) in UA.

eggynack

2013-10-07, 12:59 PM

And Aspect of Nature (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#wildShapeVariantAspectOfN ature) in UA.
I tend to prefer aspect of the dragon (DrM, 11). It just seems somewhat better, and I've always disliked aspect of nature.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-07, 01:01 PM

Honestly, I do too. I think Shapeshift (PHB-II) is a much better mockup of how wildshape should be, but Aspect of Nature has the advantage of being OGL and on d20SRD (which matters for some people).

SimonMoon6

2013-10-07, 01:04 PM

So why wouldn't "one creature-form per spell" work?

Because generally, there's one BEST form. Once you learn "Troll-morph" and maybe "Hydra-morph", there aren't many other 'morph spells you need. And when a new better monster comes out, you learn that spell. Wizards can always learn whatever they need for a pittance.

And if you need a particular form at the drop of a hat, why, that's what scrolls are for.

johnbragg

2013-10-07, 01:06 PM

I'm not sure I'm right, because very good arguments have been made. But I'm also not sure I'm wrong yet.

To have individual spells, you'd be looking at adding several thousand new spells.

Yes, in the game world. In the real-world books, it's one spell, or one spell-chain with a version for each spell level. By that logic, Weapon Focus is 40 or 50 feats just in the SRD.

2) This gets more complex when you realize just how many different sizes casters come in. Think of the difference in size (effectively) between a pixie sorcerer and an Ancient Dragon.

Well, an Ancient Red Dragon should have a harder time turning into a fire giant than into a green dragon, and a harder time turning into an elf than a fire giant, and a harder time turning into a pixie than an elf. So if that's a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th level spell, is that bad?

It would, but it's also not very fun. Shapeshifting is the toolbox discipline - "I need to swim - aquatic form! I need to climb - monkey/cat form! I need to fly - bird form!" Making one spell for each of those is certainly a thing one could do, but I think PF got it more or less to where it needed to be.

I think it's a different distribution of fun. "Aargh! I picked eagleshape first and I need to climb" followed by "Yes! NEw level! Monkey shenanigans!"

A lack of access to large creatures restricts beat stick forms somewhat, but it doesn't do as much to stop defensive forms.

I figure if you have Desmodu hunting bat as one of say 4 options at as an 8th level druid, that's not crazily unbalanced, is it? Even if you have the 4 best options, it's still only 4.

You can easily pump your knowledge checks high enough to know about every creature that exists. Wizards do it pretty much automatically anyway.

True. But shouldn't you get something for maxing those skills?

Meanwhile, the one creature per spell restriction just limits versatility in the case of Sorcerer and adding a gold tax in the case of Wizards.

The wizard still has to memorize the right one that day.

Keneth

2013-10-07, 01:07 PM

I think PF got it more or less to where it needed to be.

My sentiment as well. As far as I'm concerned, Pathfinder fixed polymorphing perfectly.

Telonius

2013-10-07, 01:09 PM

You can easily pump your knowledge checks high enough to know about every creature that exists. Wizards do it pretty much automatically anyway. Keep in mind that these are people who can memorize entire libraries in a day or chat with the gods themselves. They are not only smarter than the smartest person who has ever lived, they are so much incomprehensibly smarter that they make real life geniuses look like idiots.

Meanwhile, the one creature per spell restriction just limits versatility in the case of Sorcerer and adding a gold tax in the case of Wizards.

Agreed on the "Gold tax." You're probably not going to need to have the entire Monster Manual worth of polymorph in your spellbook. There are probably just a few forms that the Wizard is going to want for given situations (i.e. flying, swimming, burrowing, smashing things in). They'll find the most powerful forms for each contingency, and add five or six of those to the spellbook. It's only a fourth level spell, so even if you wanted the top ten of them, that's only - what, 4000gp? 3000gp if you bump it down to a 3rd-level spell.

johnbragg

2013-10-07, 01:10 PM

Because generally, there's one BEST form. Once you learn "Troll-morph" and maybe "Hydra-morph", there aren't many other 'morph spells you need.

Unless you need to climb. Or want to fly. Or spy. Or get through a less-than-massive water passageway.

And if you need a particular form at the drop of a hat, why, that's what scrolls are for.

Assuming you have the scroll of the right form.

As far as I'm concerned, Pathfinder fixed polymorphing perfectly.

I'm starting to hear a lot of this.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-07, 01:10 PM

True. But shouldn't you get something for maxing those skills?You already do.

The wizard still has to memorize the right one that day.
Scrolls, wands, staves, potions all say no.

Further issue: most polymorph effects (the good ones, at least), are Target: self. I would reckon that a lot of polymorph issues could just be solved if they became target: willing creature touched, which would make them less "I am a spellcasting hydra and obsoleting half my party" and more "I am being a good party member and buffing the frontliner with a frontline buff".

Assuming you have the scroll of the right form.
Making (and even just buying) scrolls and potions are so ridiculously cheap it is frankly pointless to consider that a spellcaster worth his salt will not have level-appropriate polymorph spell scrolls.

eggynack

2013-10-07, 01:22 PM

I figure if you have Desmodu hunting bat as one of say 4 options at as an 8th level druid, that's not crazily unbalanced, is it? Even if you have the 4 best options, it's still only 4.
It's a lot. It's realistically about as much as you're getting from wild shape on an ordinary basis. I mean, sure, sometimes you'll enter into a situation where you really need access to a particular combat mechanic, and your unmatched druidic versatility will win the day, but most of the time, you're going to be a bat. Make the other three options some kinda burrowing form, some aquatic form, and maybe a bear, and you're generally covered. You're probably covered with just the bat, particularly if you're covering aquatic ground through spells (heart of water), and burrowing ground through summons (probably a thoqqua). I mean, how much are you really missing out on by not having access to non-bat forms? Not much, I'd say. Also, you can do this neat thing where you cast bite of the wererat, and use that spell's free weapon finesse to leverage the bat's huge dexterity into attack bonus. I dunno if it's any good, particularly cause you're not doing much damage, but it's cool.

Invader

2013-10-07, 01:22 PM

There's also a vast difference between polymorph and Wildshape.

Story

2013-10-07, 01:23 PM

Further issue: most polymorph effects (the good ones, at least), are Target: self. I would reckon that a lot of polymorph issues could just be solved if they became target: willing creature touched, which would make them less "I am a spellcasting hydra and obsoleting half my party" and more "I am being a good party member and buffing the frontliner with a frontline buff".

Straight Polymorph is already willing creature touched. Turning the Rogue into a Hydra is a perfectly viable option.

eggynack

2013-10-07, 01:24 PM

There's also a vast difference between polymorph and Wildshape.
Definitely true. Polymorph is probably better for the versatility it offers than for its ability to brute force a solution. Wild shape is probably better for brute forcing stuff with particular forms, even if that brute force solution is defensive in nature.

johnbragg

2013-10-07, 01:29 PM

You already do.
Making (and even just buying) scrolls and potions are so ridiculously cheap it is frankly pointless to consider that a spellcaster worth his salt will not have level-appropriate polymorph spell scrolls.

This is true. If the 5th level arcane caster is carrying around 20 1st level spells on scrolls (as well he should), the 10th level caster is carrying around a scroll of polymorph (or 5) for every situation.

So the short answer to "So why wouldn't one creature-form per spell work?" is Scrolls.

Psyren

2013-10-07, 01:31 PM

I'm starting to hear a lot of this.

The reason is simple - because the spell sets a hard limit on your potential power at each level, it's easy for the DM to not worry about perusing every new monster that gets printed. For instance, you can't ever get pounce from Beast Shape I even if they make 10 more bestiaries, and your flight from that spell will have a maximum of 30ft. (average.)

I think it's a different distribution of fun. "Aargh! I picked eagleshape first and I need to climb" followed by "Yes! NEw level! Monkey shenanigans!"

That's fair, and we can agree to disagree. But have you tried the PF version in a game, and if so, what problems have you had with it?

Fax Celestis

2013-10-07, 01:34 PM

Straight Polymorph is already willing creature touched. Turning the Rogue into a Hydra is a perfectly viable option.

Shapechange, alter self, body of war, trollshape, winged watcher, aquatic escape, aspect of the icy hunter, all three dragonshapes, dreaded form of the eye tyrant, form of the threefold beast, shape of the hellspawned stalker, and form of the desert hunter are all self-only. Polymorph is the general exception to the "polymorph spells are self-only" non-rule.

Gorfnod

2013-10-07, 01:37 PM

Making one spell for each of those is certainly a thing one could do, but I think PF got it more or less to where it needed to be.

This.

Even when playing in 3.5 games the PF rules on polymorph/shapechange/wild shape are the way to go.

Urpriest

2013-10-07, 01:39 PM

As long as the spell only turns you into one thing, it could be written as a normal buff spell and fill the same niche more efficiently. For example, you wouldn't learn the "turn into a monkey" polymorph, you'd learn Spider Climb. The whole reason anyone in fiction shapeshifts at all is for versatility.

johnbragg

2013-10-07, 01:39 PM

But have you tried the PF version in a game, and if so, what problems have you had with it?

No, I haven't been able to. I'm having this discussion, which is leading me to believe that PF polymorph > my simple fixes.

I said at the beginning "Since those fixes haven't been used, there must be something I'm not seeing." And yeah, scrolls, dummy.

One-creature-per-spell/feat would work in E6, but not in a setting where scrolls of 4th level spells are a thing.

That's fair, and we can agree to disagree.

I'm not disagreeing that PF fixed polymorph. It sounds good, and nobody's posted "PF polymorph is STILL broken and here's why."

I was just arguing that "Yes! I get a new ability that will let me do new stuff" is a different distribution of fun, not always less fun.

I was just saying that it's a different distribution of fun.

The whole reason anyone in fiction shapeshifts at all is for versatility.

No, very often it's just badass and just fits your type. Were-creatures, Game of Thrones skinchangers, Beorn from LOTR all had one form. Classic vampires had few options.

Oh, and Harry Potter Animages.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-07, 01:46 PM

My few problems with PF polymorph (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Transmutation-Polymorph):
You adjust your stats according to your size changes. This means polymorphing into a Gargantuan creature is worse for a halfling than a human.
Equipment that has always-on functionality melds into your new form and remains functional.
If you choose a form that can speak and gesticulate, you retain spellcasting ability without a feat.

killem2

2013-10-07, 01:46 PM

So why wouldn't "one creature-form per spell" work?

because it is based on the faulty logic that because one person can, will, and has broken the spell everyone will.

eggynack

2013-10-07, 01:46 PM

I said at the beginning "Since those fixes haven't been used, there must be something I'm not seeing." And yeah, scrolls, dummy.

What do you mean, "Since those fixes haven't been used,"? Fixes to the game's balance pretty much never see perfect and widespread adoption. They barely ever even see decent levels of adoption. This is a houserule, and the only type of houserule that I'd say sees broad adoption is the type most people don't even know are houserules. Think something like monks not getting unarmed strike proficiency. Pretty much everyone who knows about that rules oddity also knows enough about the system to not think monks are overpowered, so it is a rare table that plays by the RAW on this matter.

Psyren

2013-10-07, 01:55 PM

And yeah, scrolls, dummy.

Is that directed at me? :smallconfused:

As long as the spell only turns you into one thing, it could be written as a normal buff spell and fill the same niche more efficiently. For example, you wouldn't learn the "turn into a monkey" polymorph, you'd learn Spider Climb. The whole reason anyone in fiction shapeshifts at all is for versatility.

Exactly.

No, very often it's just badass and just fits your type. Were-creatures, Game of Thrones skinchangers, Beorn from LOTR all had one form. Classic vampires had few options.

Oh, and Harry Potter Animages.

Nitpicks: GoT Skinchangers are closer to Magic Jar than Polymorph. Were-creatures occupy an entirely different niche - i.e. transformation as involuntary curse rather than disciplined mastery of form.

Animagi have one form, not because it is convenient or desirable, but because their magic system only allows one. You seem to still want multiple forms, just with multiple spells, which isn't representative of Animagi at all.

John Longarrow

2013-10-07, 02:23 PM

Yes, in the game world. In the real-world books, it's one spell, or one spell-chain with a version for each spell level. By that logic, Weapon Focus is 40 or 50 feats just in the SRD.

Exactly. A fighter takes weapon focus(Great sword), not just weapon focus. Like wise a wizard would need to learn one spell for each form. This costs a wizard some gold, but makes a sorcerer's life a great pain. Net, doesn't affect the one class that already has the greatest chance of abusing the spell for very limited change to the game table.

Of course it your goal is to really make sorcerers less likely to polymorph, go for it.

Psyren

2013-10-07, 02:34 PM

You adjust your stats according to your size changes. This means polymorphing into a Gargantuan creature is worse for a halfling than a human.

This is incorrect - starting from Small and starting from Medium (assuming equal stats) are functionally identical. It is only larger and smaller sizes than those two where you have to make adjustments prior to applying the spell effect. So a halfling and a human (again, assuming equal stats) are treated no differently when polymorphing into something Gargantuan.

Equipment that has always-on functionality melds into your new form and remains functional.

Er, I'm confused... why is this a problem?

If you choose a form that can speak and gesticulate, you retain spellcasting ability without a feat.

And this too? If I turn into another humanoid - or say, an elemental - I would expect to still have spellcasting.

eggynack

2013-10-07, 02:36 PM

No, my goal was to discover why the "obvious, simple solution to a longstanding problem" didn't work. As it usually doesn't, or there wouldn't be a longstanding problem.
As I noted, problems in a game system don't just go away because there's a solution. They just sit there, in the books, staring at you with unblinking eyes, appearing always in the far corners of your vision. Watch me solve the problem with polymorph: "Polymorph is banned." Some folks don't like that, and some folks also won't like your solution, perhaps because they don't see anything that needs solving. Maybe your solution is better than the one I just presented. It doesn't matter. It's just a problem with the system. You can't will it to stop existing.

Keneth

2013-10-07, 02:41 PM

You adjust your stats according to your size changes. This means polymorphing into a Gargantuan creature is worse for a halfling than a human.

Why would it be worse? Additional size modifiers are only applied if you're smaller than small, or larger than medium. :smallconfused:

Equipment that has always-on functionality melds into your new form and remains functional.

And that's bad... how exactly? It's always been one of the highlights of PF polymorph. No more worrying which items stick around if you polymorph into a form that's semi-humanoid, and no more wilding clasp shenanigans.

If you choose a form that can speak and gesticulate, you retain spellcasting ability without a feat.

There are very few such forms when considering the common spell variants and I don't see anything particularly wrong with that. If your form can speak and perform precise hand gestures, why should you be prevented from spellcasting? Polymorph spells aren't tenser's transformation. :smallbiggrin:

(As expected, swordsaged by Psyren. We're on the same wavelength anyway. :smalltongue:)

johnbragg

2013-10-07, 02:46 PM

:
Originally Posted by johnbragg View Post
So why wouldn't "one creature-form per spell" work?
because it is based on the faulty logic that because one person can, will, and has broken the spell everyone will.

Valid point. It takes away manyshape-polymorphing from everybody because some players pushed the limits.

What do you mean, "Since those fixes haven't been used,"?
I could be more specific and say "those fixes have not been widely adopted, and widely recommended on GITP and similar forums." Note that PAthfinder polymorph was recommended by at least three people on this thread.

I think it's fair to say that, if the solution were in fact as easy as "just limit each polymorph spell to one shape", they'd have done that in 3.5, or in PAthfinder, or in one of a plethora of splatbooks, and it would be widely recommended. My proposed solution was not a good one, as I suspected--it was too easy.

Originally Posted by johnbragg View Post
And yeah, scrolls, dummy.
Is that directed at me?

Nope, I'm the dummy who didn't think of what the availability of scrolls would do to the one-creature-one-spell fix.

Of course it your goal is to really make sorcerers less likely to polymorph, go for it.

No, my goal was to find out what was wrong with my obvious, simple solution.

I suppose the larger goal was to figure out a way to get rid of "bad, broken polymorph" while still retaining the ability of characters to assume a non-humanoid shape. To which the answer is apparently Pathfinder.

eggynack

2013-10-07, 02:54 PM

I could be more specific and say "those fixes have not been widely adopted, and widely recommended on GITP and similar forums."

How many fixes can you name which have seen wide adoption? Better fixes to bigger problems see use in what is likely the vast minority of games, even among games played by people on these forums. The PF fix is quite good, but the main reason it gets mentioned so much is because it has a wide audience.

Psyren

2013-10-07, 02:59 PM

To echo eggynack, it's not necessarily that the PF fix is the absolute most well-crafted one out there or even the coolest. But it's (a) good, (b) OGL and (c) been adopted far and wide for several years with no major issues. That's one hell of a stress test. If there were glaring flaws they would have come up by now.

It's not perfect, but it does the job well enough that I personally haven't needed to hunt for a replacement.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-07, 03:05 PM

Er, I'm confused... why is this a problem?
[...]
And this too? If I turn into another humanoid - or say, an elemental - I would expect to still have spellcasting.

Because from a balance--and a designer's--perspective it's a nightmare. Compare:

Shapechange: I am now a dragon!

Form of the Dragon III: I am now a dragon! Also I still have spellcasting! And my items still work!

John Longarrow

2013-10-07, 03:20 PM

No, my goal was to find out what was wrong with my obvious, simple solution.

I suppose the larger goal was to figure out a way to get rid of "bad, broken polymorph" while still retaining the ability of characters to assume a non-humanoid shape. To which the answer is apparently Pathfinder.

This actually shows how some times what seems to be a good fix can accidentally cause more problems. For a Sorcerer, Polymorph tends to be a "Go to" spell when they need to overcome some types of challenges. Can't fly? Polymorph. Can't breath under water? Polymorph. Can't carry the fighter that's been turned to stone out of harms way? Polymorph!

I will need to look at the PF stuff for an upcoming campaign I am looking at running though...

Gorfnod

2013-10-07, 03:20 PM

Because from a balance--and a designer's--perspective it's a nightmare. Compare:

Shapechange: I am now a dragon!
Form of the Dragon III: I am now a dragon! Also I still have spellcasting! And my items still work!

This would indeed be a much bigger problem if the two pieces of bolded text were indeed identical but they are not. PF is very specific in what you gain and is much more limited in the actual stat improvements over the dragon forms you would take in 3.5.

EDIT:
Also did shapechange actually take away spellcasting before?

Psyren

2013-10-07, 03:22 PM

Because from a balance--and a designer's--perspective it's a nightmare. Compare:

Shapechange: I am now a dragon!

Form of the Dragon III: I now have the appearance of, and am buffed with several abilities commonly associated with my chosen dragon, that are balanced with the level of the spell I used to acquire them! And my spellcasting and items still work, just as they would with any other buff I might have spent that standard action on! Also the buffs I got are mutually exclusive with several other useful ones I might have gone with, and my physical ability scores were augmented by the spell rather than totally replaced!

Fixed that for you

Gorfnod

2013-10-07, 03:28 PM

Look at the post above this, now look at the post above that.

Did I just Ninja Psyren?!?! Yes, yes I think I did. :smallcool:

Psyren

2013-10-07, 03:34 PM

Did I just Ninja Psyren?!?! Yes, yes I think I did. :smallcool:

The point bore repeating :smalltongue:

Fax Celestis

2013-10-07, 03:39 PM

Also did shapechange actually take away spellcasting before?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#alternateForm

Alternate Form
A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume one or more specific alternate forms. A true seeing spell or ability reveals the creature’s natural form. A creature using alternate form reverts to its natural form when killed, but separated body parts retain their shape. A creature cannot use alternate form to take the form of a creature with a template. Assuming an alternate form results in the following changes to the creature:

The creature retains the type and subtype of its original form. It gains the size of its new form. If the new form has the aquatic subtype, the creature gains that subtype as well.
The creature loses the natural weapons, natural armor, and movement modes of its original form, as well as any extraordinary special attacks of its original form not derived from class levels (such as the barbarian’s rage class feature).
The creature gains the natural weapons, natural armor, movement modes, and extraordinary special attacks of its new form.
The creature retains the special qualities of its original form. It does not gain any special qualities of its new form.
The creature retains the spell-like abilities and supernatural attacks of its old form (except for breath weapons and gaze attacks). It does not gain the spell-like abilities or attacks of its new form.
The creature gains the physical ability scores (Str, Dex, Con) of its new form. It retains the mental ability scores (Int, Wis, Cha) of its original form. Apply any changed physical ability score modifiers in all appropriate areas with one exception: the creature retains the hit points of its original form despite any change to its Constitution.
The creature retains its hit points and save bonuses, although its save modifiers may change due to a change in ability scores.
Except as described elsewhere, the creature retains all other game statistics of its original form, including (but not necessarily limited to) HD, hit points, skill ranks, feats, base attack bonus, and base save bonuses.
The creature retains any spellcasting ability it had in its original form, although it must be able to speak intelligibly to cast spells with verbal components and it must have humanlike hands to cast spells with somatic components.
The creature is effectively camouflaged as a creature of its new form, and it gains a +10 bonus on Disguise checks if it uses this ability to create a disguise.
Any gear worn or carried by the creature that can’t be worn or carried in its new form instead falls to the ground in its space. If the creature changes size, any gear it wears or carries that can be worn or carried in its new form changes size to match the new size. (Nonhumanoid-shaped creatures can’t wear armor designed for humanoid-shaped creatures, and vice versa.) Gear returns to normal size if dropped.

So, depending upon your form, yes.

I don't know why I thought it was otherwise, so I guess what I considered to be the most egregious offense of new!Polymorph is a non-issue.

I still think polymorph in general is Bad News™, but the biggest issues are basically solved by new!Polymorph. I still am not a fan of equipment remaining functional, but I can see why they did it.

If it were me, I would make polymorph spells function like summon monster spells: here is one spell, pick an option on this list. And I'd get rid of the ridiculous scaling stat bonuses based on your original size--flat scores for everyone.

Psyren

2013-10-07, 03:49 PM

Actually, Shapechange is based on Polymorph, not Alternate Form - but in either case, you can still casts spells so long as the new form can provide the necessary components. (Alternate Form was cooked up for Wild Shape, so that druids would still be humanoid even while they were peeing on trees or whatever, or so that Vampires could still be Turned or Commanded in Bat form.)

I understand it can be confusing Fax; in fact, learning the ins and outs of these labyrinthine rules vagaries is exactly what led me to appreciate PF's take on it all the more.

If it were me, I would make polymorph spells function like summon monster spells: here is one spell, pick an option on this list. And I'd get rid of the ridiculous scaling stat bonuses based on your original size--flat scores for everyone.

Not sure what you mean by "scaling." The stat adjustments based on original size in PF Polymorph are part of a necessary two-step process - the spells (e.g. Beast Shape etc.) buff your ability scores if you turn into something of a specific size, and so they are keyed off of Small and Medium (the sizes that player races are intended to be.) So the first step is always "get the player to one of those two sizes, then follow the spell." It's a pretty effective balancing tool.

If you didn't have that, you could have all kinds of silliness - such as a Huge creature polymorphing into itself to get a free +10 to strength.

ryu

2013-10-07, 03:59 PM

If you didn't have that, you could have all kinds of silliness - such as a Huge creature polymorphing into itself to get a free +10 to strength.

But that would be AWESOME! Here at wizard CO. we concentrate our minions for that old fashioned double minion goodness.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-07, 04:05 PM

Actually, Shapechange is based on Polymorph, not Alternate Form - but in either case, you can still casts spells so long as the new form can provide the necessary components.

This spell functions like polymorph,

This spell functions like alter self,

[basically text of Alternate Form]

So it's not direct, but it's functionally identical.

If you didn't have that, you could have all kinds of silliness - such as a Huge creature polymorphing into itself to get a free +10 to strength.
Not fixed modifiers. Fixed values. IE: polymorph into a hill giant, your STR is now 25.

Keneth

2013-10-07, 04:10 PM

Not fixed modifiers. Fixed values. IE: polymorph into a hill giant, your STR is now 25.

That makes the whole point of PF polymorphing moot since it allows you to dump your scores again.

Psyren

2013-10-07, 04:11 PM

So it's not direct, but it's functionally identical.

Again, I understand your confusion, but both the SRD and especially Rules Compendium outline the differences in detail.

The main difference is that Polymorph changes your type - Alternate Form does not.

Not fixed modifiers. Fixed values. IE: polymorph into a hill giant, your STR is now 25.

No! That's one of the things that broke 3.5 polymorph in the first place. You had noodly-armed wizards and druids with 8 Str able to benchpress the barbarian and his gear because of that. Bonuses are the way to go.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-07, 04:14 PM

Again, I understand your confusion, but both the SRD and especially Rules Compendium outline the differences in detail.

The main difference is that Polymorph changes your type - Alternate Form does not.

No! That's one of the things that broke 3.5 polymorph in the first place. You had noodly-armed wizards and druids with 8 Str able to benchpress the barbarian and his gear because of that. Bonuses are the way to go.

Curse word.

Psyren, I might just have to have you do d20r polymorph, because jesustapdancingchrist I am apparently terrible with polymorphism.

John Longarrow

2013-10-07, 04:20 PM

No! That's one of the things that broke 3.5 polymorph in the first place. You had noodly-armed wizards and druids with 8 Str able to benchpress the barbarian and his gear because of that. Bonuses are the way to go.

And now high strength wizards are bench pressing the giants they turn into. Instead of going straight to a STR of 25, that STR 16 Gish now has a 31...

Still kinda broken, but in a different way.

Psyren

2013-10-07, 04:21 PM

You might not want that, since I'd basically just point at the PF version :smallwink::smalltongue:

Well, I'd probably take the opportunity to add Undead Anatomy/Vermin Shape/Monstrous Physique etc. to the general 3 (Polymorph, GP and Shapechange), but beyond that I wouldn't do much to the PF versions. They're really the best balance of fun and functional I've seen.

And now high strength wizards are bench pressing the giants they turn into. Instead of going straight to a STR of 25, that STR 16 Gish now has a 31...

Still kinda broken, but in a different way.

Exactly, he has to get strong before he polymorphs. That's good!

And he can't rely on size bonuses to do it because they don't stack.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-07, 04:23 PM

You might not want that, since I'd basically just point at the PF version :smallwink::smalltongue:

Well, I'd probably take the opportunity to add Undead Shape/Vermin Shape/Monstrous Physique etc. to the general 3 (Polymorph, GP and Shapechange), but beyond that I wouldn't do much to the PF versions. They're really the best balance of fun and functional I've seen.

As long as it's OGL, it's legit, and all non-fluff bits of PF are OGL.

Maybe I will end up giving the d20r Wizard a polymorphism school.

Keneth

2013-10-07, 04:29 PM

And now high strength wizards are bench pressing the giants they turn into. Instead of going straight to a STR of 25, that STR 16 Gish now has a 31...

Still kinda broken, but in a different way.

Eh? With what? The largest Str bonus is from form of the dragon III, for a whopping +10 Str as an 8th level spell. And the actual gish (magus) can't even cast it!

The only potentially broken polymorphers in PF (barring monsters) are druids, and even shifters have to sacrifice their spell efficiency to get good stats, making it a self-balancing factor.

SimonMoon6

2013-10-07, 05:57 PM

Unless you need to climb.

Spider Climb is 1st level. There's no reason not to have scrolls/potions/wands of spider climb.

Or want to fly.

Fly is 3rd level. Alter Self (winged elf) is 2nd level.

Or spy.

Scry.

Or get through a less-than-massive water passageway.

Teleport. Or Alter Self (mermaid).

Assuming you have the scroll of the right form.

But they're cheap and you don't need many.

I'm starting to hear a lot of this.

Well, Pathfinder did nerf the heck out of polymorph spells, but I'm not happy with it. They took out all the fluff (can I change hair color? gender? eye color?) and there's still a lot of strange stuff (like a burly orc using alter self to turn into a delicate looking elf in order to get a +2 bonus to strength). And they've taken the fun out, in the sense that all forms are pretty much the same. There's little reason to care what you turn into just so long as you turn into *something*. You get the same bonuses (more or less... you only get certain abilities from certain forms, which again just encourages finding the best forms, which this time means the ones with as many abilities as possible).

Psyren

2013-10-07, 06:33 PM

They took out all the fluff (can I change hair color? gender? eye color?)

Yes to all. The only thing you can't do is impersonate specific individuals, or deviate outside the norm for that race.

and there's still a lot of strange stuff (like a burly orc using alter self to turn into a delicate looking elf in order to get a +2 bonus to strength).

Well, Elves are described as "slender, but surprisingly strong" so this isn't that strange. Also, +2 Str is barely worth noting, you can get more than that just from blowing your top; it's not like it makes you the Incredible Hulk or anything.

And they've taken the fun out, in the sense that all forms are pretty much the same. There's little reason to care what you turn into just so long as you turn into *something*. You get the same bonuses (more or less... you only get certain abilities from certain forms, which again just encourages finding the best forms, which this time means the ones with as many abilities as possible).

This is contradictory - you say there's no reason to care what you turn into, but then you mention that there are "best forms," implying that you should care what you turn into because some options are better than others. So which is it?

137beth

2013-10-07, 06:42 PM

Honestly I'd prefer if the PF versions allowed you to cast them on allies. Presumably make them a little weaker. It makes the party dynamic a lot better when the wizard is buffing the fighter so they both do something, rather than when the wizard is buffing himself and the fighter is totally irrelevant. And with bonuses instead of fixed attributes the wizard now has a greater incentive to polymorph the fighter, instead of his large familiar.

Psyren

2013-10-07, 06:46 PM

Polymorph and Greater Polymorph are castable on the Fighter.

SimonMoon6

2013-10-07, 07:06 PM

Yes to all. The only thing you can't do is impersonate specific individuals, or deviate outside the norm for that race.

And where would I find that in the pathfinder srd?

Well, Elves are described as "slender, but surprisingly strong" so this isn't that strange. Also, +2 Str is barely worth noting, you can get more than that just from blowing your top; it's not like it makes you the Incredible Hulk or anything.

Well, change "elf" to any remarkably thin looking humanoid. Strong people can become stronger by changing into a less muscular form. That seems incredibly absurd.

This is contradictory - you say there's no reason to care what you turn into, but then you mention that there are "best forms," implying that you should care what you turn into because some options are better than others. So which is it?

It's both. You don't care if you turn into a lion or an elephant because they're equally strong and durable. So, that's absurd.

But you also have the whole "search every monster book" issue to see if you can find a creature that has every ability that "beast shape" (or whatever spell you're using) can grant you, creating the same problem that polymorph has, that the more monsters that are allowed in the game, the more power you can get out of these spells... even if the power is very very small in pathfinder even if you can find a way to get every ability.

You would never want to turn into an elephant because of how strong and tough it is. You would rather turn into something that can climb walls and can see in the dark and so forth... because you will be just as strong as if you *had* turned into an elephant. Even if you turn into something weak and frail looking.

Karnith

2013-10-07, 07:27 PM

And where would I find that in the pathfinder srd?It's part of the Polymorph subschool rules. Per the Pathfinder SRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Transmutation-Polymorph):

Unless otherwise noted, polymorph spells cannot be used to change into specific individuals. Although many of the fine details can be controlled, your appearance is always that of a generic member of that creature's type. Polymorph spells cannot be used to assume the form of a creature with a template or an advanced version of a creature.(Emphasis mine)

Psyren

2013-10-07, 08:05 PM

It's both. You don't care if you turn into a lion or an elephant because they're equally strong and durable. So, that's absurd.

Of course it's absurd - it's wrong. Lions would be Large (Beast Shape II, +4 Str) while Elephants are Huge (Beast Shape III, +6 Str.) Or if you meant mountain lion, those would be medium (BI, +2).

I mean, I don't have a problem with you not-liking the rules, but at least not-like them accurately...

But you also have the whole "search every monster book" issue to see if you can find a creature that has every ability that "beast shape" (or whatever spell you're using) can grant you,

You're welcome! (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1avbOKg848X3Z3dVpmdrpxtR__zan2jj_NzP0uZU9LTw/edit)

eggynack

2013-10-07, 08:13 PM

Of course it's absurd - it's wrong. Lions would be Large (Beast Shape II, +4 Str) while Elephants are Huge (Beast Shape III, +6 Str.) Or if you meant mountain lion, those would be medium (BI, +2).

I mean, I don't have a problem with you not-liking the rules, but at least not-like them accurately...

I don't think the point is that these forms are all the same. The point is that these forms are all really similar. One of the biggest problems with polymorph is the sheer variety of it: just how many completely and utterly different things you can become. A bear and an elephant play completely differently in 3.5. PF fixed that problem, and that had the side effect of making the ability quite a bit less interesting. Honestly, it's probably better this way, but the way it was was pretty cool.

Psyren

2013-10-07, 08:37 PM

eggynack

2013-10-07, 09:07 PM

But they do still play differently. Elephants have trample and gore, both of which you get from BS3 - which is, coincidentally, the earliest one that gets you an elephant form. Bears meanwhile have grab - which, naturally, you get from BS2.

So I'm just not seeing where the complaining is coming from.
That is true. Still, I feel like no matter how different the PF versions can be, the 3.5 ones will tend to be more different, just because of the very nature of the spells. Like, you still get trample versus grab, but the 3.5 version gives you all the specific attacks, and the AC, and often varied move speeds (not here, but still). These are all things that give PF an advantage, because all those quirky little effects, and big important effects, give you a hell of a lot of power. However, polymorph turns you into a creature of your choice, and PF polymorph makes you into a faded image of that creature, and there's a difference there.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-07, 09:08 PM

However, polymorph turns you into a creature of your choice, and PF polymorph makes you into a faded image of that creature, and there's a difference there.

...and why should magic be perfect?

eggynack

2013-10-07, 09:15 PM

...and why should magic be perfect?
Because it's cool. Being able to actually become something, in all of its aspects, is something I think is pretty cool. The PF version seems less cool, even if the trade off between balance and cool might have been the right one to make.

Psyren

2013-10-07, 09:22 PM

Fax Celestis

2013-10-07, 09:23 PM

Because it's cool. Being able to actually become something, in all of its aspects, is something I think is pretty cool. The PF version seems less cool, even if the trade off between balance and cool might have been the right one to make.

Fireball can be resisted, targets can make the save against dominate, but polymorph goes perfectly every time? Sorry, "It's awesome" is a great reason to allow something, but it's a terrible reason to make it work like a machine.

eggynack

2013-10-07, 09:27 PM

And that eggy is my problem with most anti-PF responses - in the end many come down to gut feeling and sentiment and other such nebulous things, not clean logical analysis of the mechanics themselves. PF is certainly a long ways away from perfect, but by Pelor I'm going to give them credit for all the things they managed to do right, and polymorph is near the top of that list for me.

Is the PF version less "cool?" I'd say yes; as difficult as it is to define that word, I'd agree that it lost some nice concepts in tranlsation. You can't just turn into a Hydra anytime you're low on HP for instance. But it's definitely cool *enough.*
I dunno. I guess there's just something I like about searching through obscure books for creatures with quirky abilities. There's a lot of discovery to it that's definitely not there in PF. Seriously though, these are things that were made true by design, and it's probably a good design. I disagree with a lot of PF's choices, but what they did to polymorph was a good one. It's just that there's a price, like there always is. What you call gut feeling and sentiment is what I call game feel, and it's an important thing. If people are saying, "This doesn't feel right," then that's a problem, even if it's a smaller problem.

olentu

2013-10-07, 09:35 PM

And that eggy is my problem with most anti-PF responses - in the end many come down to gut feeling and sentiment and other such nebulous things, not clean logical analysis of the mechanics themselves. PF is certainly a long ways away from perfect, but by Pelor I'm going to give them credit for all the things they managed to do right, and polymorph is near the top of that list for me.

Is the PF version less "cool?" I'd say yes; as difficult as it is to define that word, I'd agree that it lost some nice concepts in tranlsation. You can't just turn into a Hydra anytime you're low on HP for instance. But it's definitely cool *enough.*

I don't really see how pathfinder polymorph is done better. It limits the number of abilities that can be obtained and thus is less interesting. I don't see how balance could be a concern given that the various morphing spells are spells and thus are perfectly fine, given that spellcasters are supposed to be stronger then mundanes. I suppose there is a somewhat legitimate concern about speeding up gameplay but one could make a similar complaint about about types of summoning, buffs, mind control, etc. and those remain in the game.

eggynack

2013-10-07, 09:38 PM

I don't really see how pathfinder polymorph is done better. It limits the number of abilities that can be obtained and thus is less interesting. I don't see how balance could be a concern given that the various morphing spells are spells and thus are perfectly fine, given that spellcasters are supposed to be stronger then mundanes. I suppose there is a somewhat legitimate concern about speeding up gameplay but one could make a similar complaint about about types of summoning, buffs, mind control, etc. and those remain in the game.
If there's anything accurate about your argument, and do note that the thing about game balance being constructed around wizards being universally more powerful seriously annoys me, it's not that they shouldn't have nerfed polymorph. It's that they should have also nerfed everything else.

Psyren

2013-10-07, 09:39 PM

If people are saying, "This doesn't feel right," then that's a problem, even if it's a smaller problem.

Some subset of people will say that no matter what implementation they used. It's impossible to please everyone, and trying is a recipe for failure.

(A lesson I hope 5e takes to heart.)

PF Polymorph did enough right by enough people that I have seen no serious complaints against it. If "I can't search for quirky abilities" is the most serious problem I ever see against it, I call that a win.

I don't really see how pathfinder polymorph is done better. It limits the number of abilities that can be obtained and thus is less interesting. I don't see how balance could be a concern given that the various morphing spells are spells and thus are perfectly fine, given that spellcasters are supposed to be stronger then mundanes. I suppose there is a somewhat legitimate concern about speeding up gameplay but one could make a similar complaint about about types of summoning, buffs, mind control, etc. and those remain in the game.

"Stronger than mundanes" is one thing, but "able to dump all physical stats and still outperform melee at melee*" is another issue entirely. If you don't see the problem with that... well, luckily, 3.5 is still there for you.

*Except Synthesist. But seriously, **** Synthesist.

TuggyNE

2013-10-07, 09:50 PM

No, my goal was to find out what was wrong with my obvious, simple solution.

I just felt like mentioning that this is an excellent attitude to have whenever you see something that appears obvious.

olentu

2013-10-07, 09:53 PM

"Stronger than mundanes" is one thing, but "able to dump all physical stats and still outperform melee at melee*" is another issue entirely. If you don't see the problem with that... well, luckily, 3.5 is still there for you.

Why would it be a problem that spellcasters are more powerful then non-spellcasting classes in a game where spellcasters are supposed to be more powerful. It is not like non-spellcasters can not already be avoided in other ways, such as the aforementioned summoner, so why make the game that much more boring.

Red Fel

2013-10-07, 10:04 PM

Why would it be a problem that spellcasters are more powerful then non-spellcasting classes in a game where spellcasters are supposed to be more powerful. It is not like non-spellcasters can not already be avoided in other ways, such as the aforementioned summoner, so why make the game that much more boring.

I'm going to disagree with your basic premise, to wit, "spellcasters are supposed to be more powerful." I find the logic underpinning that questionable.

Best I can understand, the argument that spellcasters are supposed to outperform mundanes is based on the idea that, in older versions of D&D (and continuing into 3.5 and PF), spellcasters did and do outperform mundanes. Yet the fact that a thing is a certain way does not mean that it should be that way.

I for one am very pleased that my current residence includes concrete walls, windows that keep out the elements, and central air and heating.

The other argument you seem to make is that limiting spellcasters would "make the game that much more boring." Again, I must disagree; a class being overpowered should not be the same as that class being interesting. And as this thread is about, in essence, how to fix an overpowered spell, I can't help but think that this attitude ("Why fix it? That would be boring!") isn't terribly constructive.

Psyren

2013-10-07, 10:07 PM

Why would it be a problem that spellcasters are more powerful then non-spellcasting classes in a game where spellcasters are supposed to be more powerful. It is not like non-spellcasters can not already be avoided in other ways, such as the aforementioned summoner, so why make the game that much more boring.

Power isn't the issue here - it's power without tradeoff. A spellcaster can be physically stronger, more durable, and more dextrous than any mundane, even in PF. But (assuming you're using standard point buy values) they have to sacrifice spellcasting ability to do so. In 3.5 that's not the case - a caster with even a 6 strength can cast one spell (Polymorph, Divine Power etc.) and become stronger than most melee classes, plus retain their spellcasting.

You may as well ask why we only advance one ability score as we level instead of all of them - the reason is that there's a tradeoff, and so our choices matter.

But that might not appeal to you, and that's fine. Like I said, you can still play 3.5 and enjoy how things used to be, and everyone wins.

ryu

2013-10-07, 10:12 PM

Power isn't the issue here - it's power without tradeoff. A spellcaster can be physically stronger, more durable, and more dextrous than any mundane, even in PF. But (assuming you're using standard point buy values) they have to sacrifice spellcasting ability to do so. In 3.5 that's not the case - a caster with even a 6 strength can cast one spell (Polymorph, Divine Power etc.) and become stronger than most melee classes, plus retain their spellcasting.

You may as well ask why we only advance one ability score as we level instead of all of them - the reason is that there's a tradeoff, and so our choices matter.

But that might not appeal to you, and that's fine. Like I said, you can still play 3.5 and enjoy how things used to be, and everyone wins.

I would contend that the power to walk up to things and effectively hit them with sticks or various body parts isn't a fair trade for any amount of spellcasting. That's like trading away a teleportation device for a broken down car with a missing headlight if I'm being extremely generous.

olentu

2013-10-07, 10:23 PM

I'm going to disagree with your basic premise, to wit, "spellcasters are supposed to be more powerful." I find the logic underpinning that questionable.

Best I can understand, the argument that spellcasters are supposed to outperform mundanes is based on the idea that, in older versions of D&D (and continuing into 3.5 and PF), spellcasters did and do outperform mundanes. Yet the fact that a thing is a certain way does not mean that it should be that way.

I for one am very pleased that my current residence includes concrete walls, windows that keep out the elements, and central air and heating.

The other argument you seem to make is that limiting spellcasters would "make the game that much more boring." Again, I must disagree; a class being overpowered should not be the same as that class being interesting. And as this thread is about, in essence, how to fix an overpowered spell, I can't help but think that this attitude ("Why fix it? That would be boring!") isn't terribly constructive.

Well of course casters are supposed to be more powerful then non-casters. If that was not the case then why would the developers deliberately make casters more powerful then non-casters. Now why that chose was made, I can not say. Perhaps the developers liked a game where some classes were better then others, perhaps it was backwards compatibility, perhaps it was a marketing ploy, perhaps something else, but the fact remains that it is what was done.

Power isn't the issue here - it's power without tradeoff. A spellcaster can be physically stronger, more durable, and more dextrous than any mundane, even in PF. But (assuming you're using standard point buy values) they have to sacrifice spellcasting ability to do so. In 3.5 that's not the case - a caster with even a 6 strength can cast one spell (Polymorph, Divine Power etc.) and become stronger than most melee classes, plus retain their spellcasting.

You may as well ask why we only advance one ability score as we level instead of all of them - the reason is that there's a tradeoff, and so our choices matter.

But that might not appeal to you, and that's fine. Like I said, you can still play 3.5 and enjoy how things used to be, and everyone wins.

Of course there is a tradeoff for using polymorph. One must expend slots, spells known (or perhaps gold to bypass that), actions, and so forth to to merely cast the spell. Additionally if this is being used to do melee combat the spell puts the caster in danger, may require spending some feats, and probably takes some supporting spells too, and even then it is probably not the most worthwhile thing the casters could be doing with their time. Admittedly the tradeoffs are less then the non-caster classes may have to spend. However, that is perfectly reasonable given that they are supposed to be weaker and one way of implementing that is to give the casters a better return on their tradeoffs then the non-casters.

Telok

2013-10-07, 10:29 PM

I dislike the implementation of the Polymorph spells in both 3.5 and PF, not for balance reasons but for playability at the table. You get this but not that, change this or that but not unless you change something else, this works but that doesn't. And PF adds "see these other spells and apply those changes too."

I opted for a simplistic solution. My house rule is "Choose your looks (within reason, the +10 bluff bonus stays) and use the standard monster entry except for Su and SLA abilities. Keep your own Intelligence and Hit Points, equipment is non-functional, if the form can cast spells then so can you."

Simple, two lines of text, and no five minute breaks while the caster/target recalculates half his stats and the associated derived stats.

Red Fel

2013-10-07, 10:30 PM

Well of course casters are supposed to be more powerful then non-casters. If that was not the case then why would the developers deliberately make casters more powerful then non-casters. Now why that chose was made, I can not say. Perhaps the developers liked a game where some classes were better then others, perhaps it was backwards compatibility, perhaps it was a marketing ploy, perhaps something else, but the fact remains that it is what was done.

And there it is. "Casters are supposed to be more powerful than non-casters because the developers made casters more powerful than non-casters."

Your logic is circular, and I won't make myself dizzy dancing with you.

ryu

2013-10-07, 10:33 PM

And there it is. "Casters are supposed to be more powerful than non-casters because the developers made casters more powerful than non-casters."

Your logic is circular, and I won't make myself dizzy dancing with you.

I believe the point he is making is essentially: How in the hell can the shown paradigm NOT be the intended state of balance? I mean just look at these things. Who wouldn't notice the difference in power while designing?

Red Fel

2013-10-07, 10:39 PM

I believe the point he is making is essentially: How in the hell can the shown paradigm NOT be the intended state of balance? I mean just look at these things. Who wouldn't notice the difference in power while designing?

There are so many imbalanced classes. So many classes that have been poorly designed. So many threads about classes that are little more than hangers-on from earlier editions.

There have been so many books published updating existing classes, or adding new ones which are quickly praised as "what X was supposed to be."

There are innumerable threads on this forum addressing these points. I defy you to say that the game is "working as intended."

Working? Yes. And without question, spells were meant to be powerful. But as Psyren points out, that power was meant to fall against an offset.

Unfortunately, having lower BAB, lower hit dice, and limited class features does not change the fact that, as played, spellcasters are powerful compared to non-casters simply by merit of having spells.

I don't think casters were "intended to be better." I think it boils down to the designers not knowing how to bring non-casters up without crippling casters as they are.

But that, I think, is a conversation for another thread, not this one.

TuggyNE

2013-10-07, 10:40 PM

a caster with even a 6 strength can cast one spell (Polymorph, Divine Power etc.) and become stronger than most melee classes, plus retain their spellcasting.

3.5 divine power just gives an enhancement bonus to Str and sets BAB to full. Not the same as polymorph or Wild Shape in that regard. (3.5 Clerics, unlike 3.5 Druids or Wizards, really are rather MAD.)

LordBlades

2013-10-07, 10:42 PM

If there's anything accurate about your argument, and do note that the thing about game balance being constructed around wizards being universally more powerful seriously annoys me, it's not that they shouldn't have nerfed polymorph. It's that they should have also nerfed everything else.

This. For the wizard, Polymorph is just one powerful spell among many. If you nerf it, there's plenty other extremely strong options. For the rest of the party however, Polymorph is probably the strongest buff they could expect from the wizard. So nerfing Polymorph while leaving everything else untouched actually hurts the rest of the party (assuming the wizard was willing to regularly cast it on party members in the first place) more than the wizard himself.

olentu

2013-10-07, 10:55 PM

There are so many imbalanced classes. So many classes that have been poorly designed. So many threads about classes that are little more than hangers-on from earlier editions.

There have been so many books published updating existing classes, or adding new ones which are quickly praised as "what X was supposed to be."

There are innumerable threads on this forum addressing these points. I defy you to say that the game is "working as intended."

Working? Yes. And without question, spells were meant to be powerful. But as Psyren points out, that power was meant to fall against an offset.

Unfortunately, having lower BAB, lower hit dice, and limited class features does not change the fact that, as played, spellcasters are powerful compared to non-casters simply by merit of having spells.

I don't think casters were "intended to be better." I think it boils down to the designers not knowing how to bring non-casters up without crippling casters as they are.

But that, I think, is a conversation for another thread, not this one.

Yes, it could certainly have been an issue of the designers not having the skill to equalize the classes without gutting casters, but regardless of if the reason was that or something else it was deliberately chosen to have casters more powerful then non-casters.

eggynack

2013-10-07, 11:01 PM

Yes, it could certainly have been an issue of the designers not having the skill to equalize the classes without gutting casters, but regardless of if the reason was that or something else it was deliberately chosen to have casters more powerful then non-casters.
Just because one class is more powerful than another class, it doesn't mean that they were supposed to be that way. People are fallible. My understanding is that fighters and wizards were intended to be imbalanced, but that there was supposed to be a linear fighter/quadratic wizard type of balance, such that fighters were more powerful than wizards at the beginning, and wizards were more powerful than fighters at the end.

It's a hypothesis borne out by the game's mechanics, because fighters probably are about as powerful as wizards are in the early levels, if not a bit more powerful. The issue is that those "early levels" are basically just level one, and maybe level two. I don't think it was supposed to happen anywhere near that fast. There is every indication that the game's developers thought that fireball was the most powerful spell of its level. With that in mind, it would make a lot of sense for those developers to consider the game balanced.

Edit: Also, understanding a game's balance isn't exactly easy. There is still a massive pile of people who think that monks are overpowered. Like, huge piles. Do you really think that it's impossible that D&D's designers made the same mistake?

Psyren

2013-10-07, 11:06 PM

I would contend that the power to walk up to things and effectively hit them with sticks or various body parts isn't a fair trade for any amount of spellcasting. That's like trading away a teleportation device for a broken down car with a missing headlight if I'm being extremely generous.

When the teleportation device requires two Masters', a PhD and several correspondence courses to learn, some people would just rather take the car. And the funny thing is, that holds true both in-universe and in the metagame.

Of course there is a tradeoff for using polymorph. One must expend slots, spells known (or perhaps gold to bypass that), actions, and so forth to to merely cast the spell. Additionally if this is being used to do melee combat the spell puts the caster in danger, may require spending some feats, and probably takes some supporting spells too, and even then it is probably not the most worthwhile thing the casters could be doing with their time. Admittedly the tradeoffs are less then the non-caster classes may have to spend. However, that is perfectly reasonable given that they are supposed to be weaker and one way of implementing that is to give the casters a better return on their tradeoffs then the non-casters.

This is what is known in economics as a sunk or false cost. Spell slots and gold to learn said spells are a resource the caster would be spending anyway, so they are not actually a tradeoff. Similarly, maxing out magical stats at the expense of physical ones is something the caster would be doing whether they planned to shapeshift or not. In either case, the sequence of actions for the caster is "cast spells, end encounter" with the only difference being whether there is a full-attack or a coup de grace in the middle.

The feats are no tradeoff at all. In 3.5, you don't even need them, because most monsters you can turn into come prepackaged with the special attacks needed to frontline effectively. You don't need Improved Grapple when you have Grab for instance.

In PF however, dumping physical stats means that shapeshifting is much less effective. But pumping physical stats so that shapeshifting works well, means that spellcasting is less effective (lower DCs, fewer bonus slots.) And pumping both means that one or more defenses is suffering.

SassyQuatch

2013-10-07, 11:07 PM

Pathfinder does it better for sure. Though if I were trying to enforce balance I could live with having a single spell but making prepared spellcasters choose their form for each use of the spell while spontaneous casters are... spontaneous.

Because wizards already have a massive advantage in choosing from what effectively becomes every spell to solve any problem. Let the sorcerer make the wizard jealous for once.

eggynack

2013-10-07, 11:14 PM

This is what is known in economics as a sunk or false cost.
Actually, it is what is known in economics as an opportunity cost, and it is a cost like any other. If you spend gold on polymorph, that is gold that is not being spent on some other spell, and a lack of access to that second spell is a cost. Similarly, the cost of preparing polymorph is not having a second different spell. What you're saying is equivalent to saying that taking weapon focus has no cost, because you would have spent the feat on combat anyway. Admittedly, the opportunity cost of taking polymorph is rather small, because polymorph is amazing, and because you generally have enough money and slots for plenty of spells, but there is an opportunity cost nonetheless.

olentu

2013-10-07, 11:14 PM

Just because one class is more powerful than another class, it doesn't mean that they were supposed to be that way. People are fallible. My understanding is that fighters and wizards were intended to be imbalanced, but that there was supposed to be a linear fighter/quadratic wizard type of balance, such that fighters were more powerful than wizards at the beginning, and wizards were more powerful than fighters at the end.

It's a hypothesis borne out by the game's mechanics, because fighters probably are about as powerful as wizards are in the early levels, if not a bit more powerful. The issue is that those "early levels" are basically just level one, and maybe level two. I don't think it was supposed to happen anywhere near that fast. There is every indication that the game's developers thought that fireball was the most powerful spell of its level. With that in mind, it would make a lot of sense for those developers to consider the game balanced.

Hmm, it seems unlikely, barring something like outrageously massive incompetence, that the developers of pathfinder would fall under that explanation.

eggynack

2013-10-07, 11:16 PM

Hmm, it seems unlikely, barring something like outrageously massive incompetence, that the developers of pathfinder would fall under that explanation.
I think that the designers of 3.5 were unaware of the balance issues to some extent. I think that the designers of PF generally just didn't care.

Psyren

2013-10-07, 11:18 PM

Actually, it is what is known in economics as an opportunity cost, and it is a cost like any other. If you spend gold on polymorph, that is gold that is not being spent on some other spell, and a lack of access to that second spell is a cost.

Not really - if both win the fight for you that cost is no cost at all. You're basically saying the opportunity cost of strawberry ice cream is chocolate ice cream because you have to pick one, but when one is all you need then it doesn't actually matter. It's not really a cost for you.'

I think that the designers of 3.5 were unaware of the balance issues to some extent. I think that the designers of PF generally just didn't care.

They made the conscious decision to value backwards compatibility more highly than rebalancing the system. Whether that was the right decision varies from person to person and isn't really on-topic anyway.

olentu

2013-10-07, 11:34 PM

I think that the designers of 3.5 were unaware of the balance issues to some extent. I think that the designers of PF generally just didn't care.

If they did not care then they presumably chose the status quo beacause it was easier. But that still means that they chose for casters to be more powerful then non-casters.

Not really - if both win the fight for you that cost is no cost at all. You're basically saying the opportunity cost of strawberry ice cream is chocolate ice cream because you have to pick one, but when one is all you need then it doesn't actually matter. It's not really a cost for you.'

Presumably the two ice cream flavors do not win the battle equally as easily.

But anyway if you are going to win either way, whether by polymorph or another spell, then what is the point of making polymorph more boring. The outcome is the same there are just less interesting ways to get there.

eggynack

2013-10-07, 11:39 PM

Not really - if both win the fight for you that cost is no cost at all. You're basically saying the opportunity cost of strawberry ice cream is chocolate ice cream because you have to pick one, but when one is all you need then it doesn't actually matter. It's not really a cost for you.'
The opportunity cost of strawberry ice cream is chocolate ice cream, and it is a real cost. When you choose where to apply your resources, you lose access to all the things you could have used those resources on otherwise. A sunk cost is a different thing. To return to the weapon focus example, it would be like taking weapon focus and weapon specialization, realizing that they suck, and then taking greater weapon focus because otherwise the feats you spent would be wasted.

They made the conscious decision to value backwards compatibility more highly than rebalancing the system. Whether that was the right decision varies from person to person and isn't really on-topic anyway.
Sure. What I'm saying is, there's no point in the process where someone said, "Hey guys. You know who should be the best? Wizards. Wizards all the way."

Psyren

2013-10-07, 11:39 PM

olentu

2013-10-08, 12:03 AM

@olentu:

I already explained there is a difference between casters being stronger at melee than non-casters, and casters accessing that power completely free of charge (i.e. building their characters with the same stat weightings whether they are gishing or direct-effect-ing.)

If that isn't plain, then I guess there's no way I can explain it more clearly.

And for me, 3e polymorph/wild shape was much more boring. I could have 8 in every stat except my casting stat and still wreck melee. Then 3.5 came along and said, oh, you need some Con too, so now I have 8/8/14/8/14/8 and I'm still physically the strongest in the party. Yawn.

And like I already said it is not free of charge. Likewise if that is not plain, then I have not come up with a way to explain it more clearly. Sure the charge is less then the non-casters have to pay, but that is merely because casters are stronger then non-casters as they are supposed to be.

Pathfinder polymorph limits the number of abilities (and I am not just talking about scores here) that can be obtained and thus is less interesting.

Psyren

2013-10-08, 12:06 AM

And like I already said it is not free of charge.

If you can dump all your physical stats and still achieve it then it's close enough to being free as makes no difference.

olentu

2013-10-08, 12:21 AM

If you can dump all your physical stats and still achieve it then it's close enough to being free as makes no difference.

Okay, I can see that this is going nowhere. So to take things in a different direction, let me ask two questions. Namely, why is this a problem given that casters can dump their physical stats and still win with all sorts of other spells and even if it is a problem why also so severely limit the number of abilities that can be obtained thereby making the spell less interesting.

Psyren

2013-10-08, 12:53 AM

olentu

2013-10-08, 03:38 AM

1) Winning with "all sorts of other spells" isn't a problem, because the guy playing the Fighter never expected to do that himself. Obviously if he had wanted to win with spells himself, he wouldn't be playing a Fighter. But the caster winning in melee takes away the one thing the Fighter can actually do - it subverts that player's expectations, steps on his toes and the game is no longer fun. And because the wizard/druid doesn't have to build his character specifically to be a gish using the old spells, he can seize the spotlight like this at the drop of a hat, anytime he wants.

2) The "less interesting" bit is subjective so there's no real way to debate this. The new versions of the spell don't do enough for you, they do more than enough for me, tomaytoe tomahtoe let's call the whole thing off.

Okay then. I don't really see why this specific method of stepping on the non-caster's toes is so different from the other ways to take away the point of having a non-caster to melee, but at least I have a better handle on your position.

I suppose that if you do not find more possibilities more interesting then we shall never be able to come to a resolution. Also, given that it was my main reason for considering pathfinder polymorph to be a poor change there really is nothing more to discuss. So unless you have something you wish to continue with I guess that is that.

SiuiS

2013-10-08, 03:44 AM

The reason polymorph is so powerful is because there are so many creatures. Each one increases the spell's power. As long as there are X sourcebooks full of monsters, any fix will run into some broken combo somehow. That, and it makes 2 of your abilities redundant.

That's why the "balanced" fixes - like the PHB2 Druid and, and the Beast Shape from PF - explicitly don't base themselves on the stats and powers of the creature you're imitating, instead giving you flat bonuses, even if you can choose how some are allocated.

The problem is really more a lack of vetting what qualifies at any particular level. If 3e used 4e monster construction, for example, this wouldn't be a problem because any given possible monster would have a (presumably reasonable) maximum in any arena given by polymorph.

The best fix is to out a cap on it of "monster's appropriate abilities or [X] based on Your level".

LordBlades

2013-10-08, 03:46 AM

Der_DWSage

2013-10-08, 04:12 AM

Actually, to counter that last post...

Animate Dead:Unlike 3.5, the revived creatures don't have to be humanoid. However, the big change is that the revived creature retains none of their special attacks that would be worth having, and have only a single basic slam or claw attack. They can be used as a meat shield, but it tends to be weaker than their original form. A Fighter, on the other hand, has received significant boosts to their damage and capabilities in PF, and depending on the skill of the person building the Fighter, can outperform even (Mage HD*4) of these meatshields offensively and defensively, due to still having class abilities that augment his ability to fight and not get hit. It's not perfect, but to be fair, Animate Dead is still a fairly expensive spell to use in such a manner, especially considering the dead have a tendency to take hits and then die again, meaning you have to spend more money that could be going to scrolls.

Planar Binding:You summon something of comparable HD, that get three different chances to escape from you the moment they appear, as well as each day they don't agree to serve you, and typically require hundreds or thousands of GP worth of payment, and also require a Charisma check to actually control. There's also nothing there about binding contracts, and the fact that the creature doesn't have to perform these actions to the best of their abilities, specifically calling out that they can subvert their duties. Useful, especially with more lawful helpers whose goals align with your own, but risky and expensive enough that I would honestly prefer to just hire a Fighter of comparable level instead.

Summon Monster:Still pretty good, even after they took out most spellcasting creatures from the list, but balanced somewhat by the fact that it takes a full round action to cast-which means people can punch you in the stomach before it finishes. If you don't have your friendly fighter taking the punch for you (Or if you're simply invisible) then it can get nasty long before you successfully summon.

I'm not saying that they aren't great options, and may make a below-average Fighter feel bad about himself...but in Pathfinder, Fighters get an inherent boost most people forget, and with comparable gear, summons just aren't as powerful or they're more expensive, and then the Fighters can scoff at the 'free' options.

Incidentally, due to the changes in how combat maneuvers work (IE, that they're based on actual combat ability rather than raw strength and size) changing the Fighter Magus with the Pathfinder Polymorph rules is a much better idea. A Magus that automatically grapples on every hit is a much improved Magus, moreso than going from 18 Strength to 22 Strength without his gear would be. They really just hit the Wizard that would go from 8 Strength to 22 Strength, and then swallow everything rather than cast another spell. (EDIT:Changed, due to noticing that Beast Shape is personal only. Still, nothing preventing it from being put on a scroll or wand and letting the Fighter use UMD, since in Pathfinder it's a lot easier to use cross-class skills...)

tl;dr version:Pathfinder changed more than Polymorph by itself. To really say 'They took away the thing that could buff Fighters' you have to not look at Polymorph in a vacuum.

olentu

2013-10-08, 04:48 AM

Honestly if we are talking about a fighter that is sufficiently bad at melee such that a wizard with no combat feats, other spells, or any other melee focused stuff suddenly steals the spotlight just by the nature of going from 8 to 22 strength I don't think it will be difficult to make them worthless.

LordBlades

2013-10-08, 06:12 AM

I'm not saying that they aren't great options, and may make a below-average Fighter feel bad about himself...but in Pathfinder, Fighters get an inherent boost most people forget, and with comparable gear, summons just aren't as powerful or they're more expensive, and then the Fighters can scoff at the 'free' options.

Since they took away Leap Attack, Shock Trooper&co and nerfed Power Attack, I fail to see how a PF fighter would be better than a 3.5 fighter.

EDIT: also, Summon Monster has the same cast time it did in 3.5.

IronFist

2013-10-08, 07:09 AM

Since they took away Leap Attack, Shock Trooper&co and nerfed Power Attack, I fail to see how a PF fighter would be better than a 3.5 fighter.

EDIT: also, Summon Monster has the same cast time it did in 3.5.

They didn't "take away" anything. It's backwards compatible.

LordBlades

2013-10-08, 07:31 AM

They didn't "take away" anything. It's backwards compatible.

I was talking about PF only. And in everything Paizo published, I've failed to find anything that would make me consider PF fighter 'buffed' compared with 3.5 fighter.

IronFist

2013-10-08, 07:44 AM

I was talking about PF only. And in everything Paizo published, I've failed to find anything that would make me consider PF fighter 'buffed' compared with 3.5 fighter.

All you're saying is that a fully optimized PF fighter does less damage in a charge than a fully optimized 3.5-only Fighter. PF Fighter also has access to feats that allow him to defend his party members (Combat Patrol, In Harm's Way, Bodyguard), better overall accuracy and damage (weapon training) and armor class (armor training). Baseline PF Power Attack also works better than 3.5 Power Attack.
Of course, I suspect this is not really the issue.

LordBlades

2013-10-08, 08:00 AM

All you're saying is that a fully optimized PF fighter does less damage in a charge than a fully optimized 3.5-only Fighter. PF Fighter also has access to feats that allow him to defend his party members (Combat Patrol, In Harm's Way, Bodyguard), better overall accuracy and damage (weapon training) and armor class (armor training). Baseline PF Power Attack also works better than 3.5 Power Attack.
Of course, I suspect this is not really the issue.

It has been claimed that PF fighter is somehow better, and therefore harder to replace by magic, than 3.5 fighter. From my knowledge, charging builds(power attack+other damage boosting feats, Dungeoncrashing, Hoods etc.) are quite widely considered the most viable 3.5 fighter builds. If a PF fighter can't reach the level of power of said builds, then I don't agree to the statement that it's 'better'.

Psyren

2013-10-08, 08:11 AM

Actually, to counter that last post...

Yep.

Honestly if we are talking about a fighter that is sufficiently bad at melee such that a wizard with no combat feats, other spells, or any other melee focused stuff suddenly steals the spotlight just by the nature of going from 8 to 22 strength I don't think it will be difficult to make them worthless.

Polymorph did way more than that and you know it. Special attacks are a very big deal, particularly things like Grab, Pounce, Constrict, Rake, enhanced senses, and additional movement modes. Shapeshifting gets you access to most or all of these without needing to spend a single feat. To call it just a strength boost is shortsighted, and to call a fighter bad simply because he can't pick up these abilities at the drop of a hat is just as shortsighted.

EDIT: also, Summon Monster has the same cast time it did in 3.5.

You realize that hurts your point? A 1 round casting time is easier to disrupt than a full-round, not harder.

LordBlades

2013-10-08, 08:24 AM

You realize that hurts your point? A 1 round casting time is easier to disrupt than a full-round, not harder.

It was stated for the sake of accuracy. Having played summoners and having seen a distinct lack of complaints around the internet about summoning being interrupted all the time I think you're overstating the frequency and/or ease of such things occurring. There are ways to mitigate the risk, like the aforementioned Invisibility.

Psyren

2013-10-08, 08:30 AM

It was stated for the sake of accuracy. Having played summoners and having seen a distinct lack of complaints around the internet about summoning being interrupted all the time I think you're overstating the frequency and/or ease of such things occurring. There are ways to mitigate the risk, like the aforementioned Invisibility.

I haven't polled the internet myself, but a drawback is a drawback. Obviously if the DM never exploits that drawback then it really isn't one. Though I will point out that the majority of summoners around the internet probably aren't playing solo, and have a meatshield of some kind standing between them and the monsters while they spend a round chanting and breakdancing.

Invisibility has the unfortunate quality of only lasting for minutes/level, so having it up before a fight starts is not easy. You can of course cast it as your first action, but then you're taking two rounds to get a summon out safely, whereas simply having the fighter along meant 2 rounds of beatdown.

Karnith

2013-10-08, 08:56 AM

Animate Dead:Unlike 3.5, the revived creatures don't have to be humanoid. However, the big change is that the revived creature retains none of their special attacks that would be worth having, and have only a single basic slam or claw attack. They can be used as a meat shield, but it tends to be weaker than their original form. A Fighter, on the other hand, has received significant boosts to their damage and capabilities in PF, and depending on the skill of the person building the Fighter, can outperform even (Mage HD*4) of these meatshields offensively and defensively, due to still having class abilities that augment his ability to fight and not get hit. It's not perfect, but to be fair, Animate Dead is still a fairly expensive spell to use in such a manner, especially considering the dead have a tendency to take hits and then die again, meaning you have to spend more money that could be going to scrolls.
So, as someone who doesn't really play Pathfinder, can I just ask if I'm missing something, or looking at the wrong things here? Animate Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm) had no type restrictions in 3.5, same as in Pathfinder. In fact, aside from minor wording changes, the spell (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/animate-dead) looks functionally the same as the 3.5 version (except that you can make some different types of skeletons by default). Skeletons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/skeleton.htm) and Zombies (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/zombie.htm) lost their Special Attacks in 3.5, as well as all Special Qualities except "extraordinary special qualities that improve its melee or ranged attacks." Which, as far as I can tell, is the same way that it works in Pathfinder. Further, the Pathfinder Skeleton (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/skeleton) and Zombie (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/zombie) templates don't remove the base creature's natural attacks, but just add the claws/slam/whatever, in the same manner as in 3.5.

There are some pretty obvious differences between 3.5 and PF Skeletons and Zombies (Zombie bonus HD rather than just doubling, some chassis changes, etc.), but all other things equal, it seems about on par with 3.5 Animate Dead. Now, there are other things to take into consideration that I'm not familiar with (differences in monster power level, support abilities that modify Animate Dead/undead, etc.), but just from the spells and creature templates I'm not seeing how the Pathfinder Animate Dead is any weaker than the 3.5 Animate Dead.

LordBlades

2013-10-08, 08:57 AM

I haven't polled the internet myself, but a drawback is a drawback. Obviously if the DM never exploits that drawback then it really isn't one. Though I will point out that the majority of summoners around the internet probably aren't playing solo, and have a meatshield of some kind standing between them and the monsters while they spend a round chanting and breakdancing.

OR are invisible, or otherwise out of sight, or flying, or any of the myriad tactics you can think up to safely summon.

My point is that summoning didn't get any harder in PF, and I have never seen anyone making the argument that summons don't replace a fighter in 3.5 because it's hard to summon.

Invisibility has the unfortunate quality of only lasting for minutes/level, so having it up before a fight starts is not easy. You can of course cast it as your first action, but then you're taking two rounds to get a summon out safely, whereas simply having the fighter along meant 2 rounds of beatdown.

Of course wizard+fighter is better than wizard. Thing is, when you're using a wizard to replace the fighter with summons, the party slot occupied by the fighter doesn't actually vanish into thin air. It can now be occupied by another, more useful party member. Like let's say another wizard, who casts a BFC spell in the first round, giving his summoning buddy time to complete his spell. Depending on exact encounter configuration, a BFC spell might very well be much more effective at ensuring the summoner doesn't get disrpted than a solo fighter (take Solid Fog for example).

Also, it only takes a Ring of Invisibility to have the spell on all the time, and it isn't that hard to get or make (especially with PF crafting rules).

Lastly, a summoning wizard might spend his first round to produce a Fighter, but then he's free to be a wizard, or produce a 2nd fighter, or whatever else he feels like. A fighter has to spend all his combat rounds 'producing' a Fighter

ryu

2013-10-08, 09:07 AM

OR are invisible, or otherwise out of sight, or flying, or any of the myriad tactics you can think up to safely summon.

My point is that summoning didn't get any harder in PF, and I have never seen anyone making the argument that summons don't replace a fighter in 3.5 because it's hard to summon.

Of course wizard+fighter is better than wizard. Thing is, when you're using a wizard to replace the fighter with summons, the party slot occupied by the fighter doesn't actually vanish into thin air. It can now be occupied by another, more useful party member. Like let's say another wizard, who casts a BFC spell in the first round, giving his summoning buddy time to complete his spell. Depending on exact encounter configuration, a BFC spell might very well be much more effective at ensuring the summoner doesn't get disrpted than a solo fighter (take Solid Fog for example).

Also, it only takes a Ring of Invisibility to have the spell on all the time, and it isn't that hard to get or make (especially with PF crafting rules).

Lastly, a summoning wizard might spend his first round to produce a Fighter, but then he's free to be a wizard, or produce a 2nd fighter, or whatever else he feels like. A fighter has to spend all his combat rounds 'producing' a Fighter

Also lets not forget just using what would be the fighters share of loot to just buy sacks of comparable meat. Such meat is cheaper on the open market where the cost isn't increased by rules fixating into the economy system.

Psyren

2013-10-08, 09:09 AM

OR are invisible, or otherwise out of sight, or flying, or any of the myriad tactics you can think up to safely summon.

Again, those are not easy to have ready when a fight starts. The majority of D&D combats are the monsters getting the drop on the party rather than the reverse. In my years of play I can count the number of times we got a surprise round on one hand.

Also, it only takes a Ring of Invisibility to have the spell on all the time, and it isn't that hard to get or make (especially with PF crafting rules).

1) No, you still have to activate the ring (standard action) - it's not constant-effect. It only lasts 3 minutes, so it's no easier to have running prior to combat than the spell would be.

2) The ring is also 10,000gp to craft; you still have to somehow live long enough to get to those levels of WBL, and summoning while visible when a monster is charging you is a good way not to accomplish that goal.

My point is that summoning didn't get any harder in PF, and I have never seen anyone making the argument that summons don't replace a fighter in 3.5 because it's hard to summon.

Actually it did get harder, thanks to the concentration/defensive casting changes. Those are a big deal for a long-casting-time spell.

Of course wizard+fighter is better than wizard. Thing is, when you're using a wizard to replace the fighter with summons, the party slot occupied by the fighter doesn't actually vanish into thin air. It can now be occupied by another, more useful party member. Like let's say another wizard, who casts a BFC spell in the first round, giving his summoning buddy time to complete his spell.

This is odd reasoning to me. If your other player wanted to be a wizard to begin with, why would he start with fighter? Presumably if he wanted to be a wizard he'd have been one and the issue would never even have come up.

Lastly, a summoning wizard might spend his first round to produce a Fighter, but then he's free to be a wizard, or produce a 2nd fighter, or whatever else he feels like. A fighter has to spend all his combat rounds 'producing' a Fighter

If his summon is disrupted, and then he has nothing between him and the enemy, he's actually not "free to be a wizard." He's in a lot of trouble.

Battlefield control does help with this, but you have to have the right ones prepped, and many have been nerfed. You mentioned Solid Fog for instance - it's much weaker in PF than in 3.5.

LordBlades

2013-10-08, 09:21 AM

Again, those are not easy to have ready when a fight starts. The majority of D&D combats are the monsters getting the drop on the party rather than the reverse. In my years of play I can count the number of times we got a surprise round on one hand.

It all depends on the group I guess. In most groups I've played with, it's been around 50-50.

1) No, you still have to activate the ring (standard action) - it's not constant-effect. It only lasts 3 minutes, so it's no easier to have running prior to combat than the spell would be.

If you refresh it all the time, then the odds of having to refresh it in the first round of combat are 1/30, or 3.33%. Might never come up in a whole campaign, even if the DM does bother to keep track of it.

2) The ring is also 10,000gp to craft; you still have to somehow live long enough to get to those levels of WBL, and summoning while visible when a monster is charging you is a good way not to accomplish that goal.

Having a party slot occupied by a tier 4 instead of a higher tier isn't the best way to accomplish the goal either. Also, not every campaign starts at level 1.

Actually it did get harder, thanks to the concentration/defensive casting changes. Those are a big deal for a long-casting-time spell.

That is a fair point.

This is odd reasoning to me. If your other player wanted to be a wizard to begin with, why would he start with fighter? Presumably if he wanted to be a wizard he'd have been one and the issue would never even have come up.

Well, if the guy wants to play a fighter regardless, he'll probably play one even if he's made redundant, obsolete and generally a drag on party resources. At least until he dies and nobody bothers to rezz him. On the other hand, if he wanted to play a fighter because he felt the party needed a meat shield (and for some reason felt the fighter was adequate for the job), he might even look forward to reorienting himself once the frontline role is taken care of.

Battlefield control does help with this, but you have to have the right ones prepped, and many have been nerfed. You mentioned Solid Fog for instance - it's much weaker in PF than in 3.5.

Most BFC spells have pretty wide fields of application. It still gets the job I mentioned done. A Solid Fog centered on a monster with less than 50 ft. move speed pretty much guarantees he can't attack for at least 1 round.

Der_DWSage

2013-10-08, 01:30 PM

Insert pointing out how Animate Dead works in 3.5 here.

A-heh. No, that was mostly me relying on memory rather than cross-referencing. Apologies. Though I still, personally, find it underwhelming for how much it costs.

Stuff about Fighters that require book-delving, various amounts of cheese, and the infamous Shock Trooper+Power Attack+Leap Attack combo.

Y'know what sucks about high optimization? It heightens the chances of the GM saying no. Or specifically planning to nerf you, because otherwise the rest of the party doesn't get a chance to do anything.

Fighters can still pump out +Lots amounts of damage with the right feats, abilities, and if necessary, backwards compability to other books. They can't pump out automatic +Win amounts of damage like Shock Trooper + Leap Attack allows them to do.

But as a general comparison? Let's do some numbers of a better-than-average summon against a Fighter of the same level as the Wizard. I'll be focusing on things that do big damage or special attacks rather than those with great defenses, mostly because Pathfinder still rewards alpha strikes more than it does good defense. I'm also assuming no Augmented Summons, mostly because I'd prefer to establish the baseline rather than optimization vs. optimization. I'm also assuming that the Fighter takes Power Attack at most times, because otherwise...what are they doing with their physical attacks?

1st level:
...Should I even do a comparison here? Really? Your best bet is a dog, with 6 HP, AC 13, and dealing 1d4+1 damage with +2 to hit. Even a low-op Fighter is going to have 10 HP, AC 16-18 (Sword and board or two-hander, both with chainmail, no dexterity bonus.) and a minimum of 1d6 damage with a +1 to hit, and that's assuming strength 10. And, of course, the limitation of it being out for 1 round.

Clear Advantage:Fighter.

3rd level:
Access to SMII shines a bit. You get access to the various elementals, which can be nice. The Lemure's low damage is offset by the fact that he's a blobby little tank with DR, which is rare at that level. (No GM should allow you to use the Hell Hound off the alternate table, as that also falls under SMIV. If he does, you have problems besides Fighter Optimization.) It only lasts 3 rounds, but sometimes, that's all you need.

Let's pick the Earth Elemental, a solid (Dohoho) choice for any summoner. 1d6+5 damage, AC 17, 13 HP, and access to power attack so his attack becomes +6 to hit, 1d6+7 damage. The low optimization Fighter has trouble matching up-in fact, he'd probably be nearly identical, save for higher HP and saves. The med-op Fighter, however, can do 2d6+10 (Greataxe, 18 Strength, Power Attack) and still have AC 17 (Chainmail, +1 Dexterity, no magic items) to contend with. It's close, but our Fighter also lasts for longer than 3 rounds. There's also the fact that, one level later, his Power Attack damage becomes +14, giving him a markedly bigger advantage.

Advantage:Fighter, if barely.

5th level:
Wizards get some more variety here. Aurochs are a prime example of pure power, but Crocodiles get a free grapple attempt every round, so I'll pick the latter. +5 to hit, 1d8+9 damage, and then +11 CMB to grapple? Very nice, though his chances to hit could be better. But even our 3rd level Fighter is comparable, and our 5th level Fighter has picked up 2 feats since then, as well as a +1 weapon and Weapon Training. +10 to hit (Assuming 18 STR, Power Attacking at all times, Weapon Focus, and +1 Weapon) and 2d6+16 damage. (Again, assuming Greataxe, 18 Strength for 6 damage, Power Attack for another 6, +1 Weapon, Weapon Training, and Weapon Specialization) A marked improvement from 1d8+9. While the crocodile is struggling to hit and get the enemy in his mouth (Assuming a 20 AC, not unlikely for that point in levels, he's only hitting 25% of the time) the Fighter has already killed him and moved on.

Would this be a good time to mention a Barbarian is doing even better than the Fighter, in terms of damage? Advantage:Fighter

7th level:
That fresh smell of new spell levels. Isn't it lovely? You even get some access to Monsters that can cast spells, but they're ignored this level, as their spells tend to suck.

Right, a tough choice here between Rhino and Bison, but let's go with the former for that big Gore damage. +8 to hit, 2d6+9 damage, or 4d6+12 damage for that gore. Surely that huge change matters, right? Average of 26 damage?

Fighter at 7th level has some new options himself, though. For starters, he can now take that thing that made the crocodile compare earlier-he can trip once per round, and force that person falling to take at least one or two attacks of opportunity with the right feats. Or he can simply deal more damage. Let's look at the Fighter's baseline-+14 to hit (Assuming Weapon Focus, 18 STR, +1 elemental weapon, Weapon Training) and 3d6+16 damage, average of 26 damage. (Same bonuses as our other Fighter, but now with 1d6 of elemental damage on his beatstick.) That Gore is comparable...the one time he gets to make it. But our Fighter can make two attacks per round, or even three if he goes the Trip-AoO route. (Attack, trip, provoke AoO on fall, provoke AoO when standing, and our Fighter has Combat Reflexes with 14 DEX.)

Advantage:Fighter

I was going to keep going, but it only kept being more of the same, and frankly, if those clear examples don't make you see things a little differently, I don't think that going on to higher levels is going to change things. Especially considering the fact that at higher levels, you have better things to do with your actions than cast summon:Petting Zoo.

LordBlades

2013-10-08, 01:57 PM

Y'know what sucks about high optimization? It heightens the chances of the GM saying no. Or specifically planning to nerf you, because otherwise the rest of the party doesn't get a chance to do anything.

In the same line of thinking, you know what sucks about low optimization? You might die. A lot. And the DM might get bored to tailor encounters to you so you can contribute, or your party might get bored to pay for your repeated resurrections. If we're not talking about a group of normal human beings that want to enjoy a game together and, you know, talk about issues when they arise, low-op sucks just about as much as high-op.

But as a general comparison? Let's do some numbers of a better-than-average summon against a Fighter of the same level as the Wizard. I'll be focusing on things that do big damage or special attacks rather than those with great defenses, mostly because Pathfinder still rewards alpha strikes more than it does good defense. I'm also assuming no Augmented Summons, mostly because I'd prefer to establish the baseline rather than optimization vs. optimization. I'm also assuming that the Fighter takes Power Attack at most times, because otherwise...what are they doing with their physical attacks?

So you're comparing a fighter that does put some effort into being not-horrible at fighting vs. a wizard that invests nothing in summoning?

1st level:
...Should I even do a comparison here? Really? Your best bet is a dog, with 6 HP, AC 13, and dealing 1d4+1 damage with +2 to hit. Even a low-op Fighter is going to have 10 HP, AC 16-18 (Sword and board or two-hander, both with chainmail, no dexterity bonus.) and a minimum of 1d6 damage with a +1 to hit, and that's assuming strength 10. And, of course, the limitation of it being out for 1 round.

Clear Advantage:Fighter.

Except the dog costs the wizard 1 spell slot , but the fighter costs the party 1 whole character. But yeah, summoning sucks at level 1 due to duration (Barring specific builds in 3.5, not sure they're any apart from summoner in PF).

Der_DWSage

2013-10-08, 02:52 PM

In the same line of thinking, you know what sucks about low optimization? You might die. A lot. And the DM might get bored to tailor encounters to you so you can contribute, or your party might get bored to pay for your repeated resurrections. If we're not talking about a group of normal human beings that want to enjoy a game together and, you know, talk about issues when they arise, low-op sucks just about as much as high-op.
Yes, but if you do low optimization, the GM is either going to a)Allow it with no issues, or b)Gently guide you towards some better options. High optimization runs into that problem of 'You do HOW much damage in a single round? No. Leap attack+Shock Trooper no longer works like that, good day sir.'

Some people can talk their issues out, but...have you read some of the problems on this board? High op brings about much more drama than low op.

So you're comparing a fighter that does put some effort into being not-horrible at fighting vs. a wizard that invests nothing in summoning?
A bit, yes. Because a Fighter's job and class features revolve around fighting, whereas the Wizard is much more likely to take things such as Spell Penetration, Extend/Empower/Quicken/etc. Spell, and other such things. The Fighter will have twice as many feats as the Wizard, and it kind of follows logic that at least something they do is going to make them more effective at fighting things, even if only by accident.

If we were making an actual Summoner vs. Fighter thread here, I'd bring it back around, but this is also establishing a baseline. Even adding +2 to hit and damage in most of my examples still give the edge to the med-op Fighter.

Lastly, remember-I was picking the better things to summon at each level. Situation dictates what the 'best' option is, but in most cases? Those were head and shoulders above other options of their level.

Except the dog costs the wizard 1 spell slot , but the fighter costs the party 1 whole character. But yeah, summoning sucks at level 1 due to duration (Barring specific builds in 3.5, not sure they're any apart from summoner in PF).

Glad to see we agree on something! Though you could also make the argument that a Wizard also costs the Party a 'character,' when they could be a Synthesist Summoner instead.

It's not exactly a 'cost,' it's just what the person wants to play.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-08, 03:06 PM

Except the dog costs the wizard 1 spell slot , but the fighter costs the party 1 whole character.

One spell slot and a lost round of actions per encounter*

ryu

2013-10-08, 03:10 PM

One spell slot and a lost round of actions per encounter*

Or just buy a trained critter to use and spend no spell slots, no serious action investment, and spend well under half the fighter's wealth by level if we're being very generous. Meat isn't expensive. It's not.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-08, 03:16 PM

Or just buy a trained critter to use and spend no spell slots, no serious action investment, and spend well under half the fighter's wealth by level if we're being very generous. Meat isn't expensive. It's not.

Except in that case, you need to buy a new pet every few levels, since it won't have an advancement path. Plus you'd have to deal with Handle Animal suckitude.

Gnaeus

2013-10-08, 03:18 PM

Further issue: most polymorph effects (the good ones, at least), are Target: self. I would reckon that a lot of polymorph issues could just be solved if they became target: willing creature touched, which would make them less "I am a spellcasting hydra and obsoleting half my party" and more "I am being a good party member and buffing the frontliner with a frontline buff"..

I agree, and this is my only objection to the PF Nerf. I feel like it takes away the best single target buff in the 3-5 level range and replaces it with nothing that helps the fighter or rogue at all.

Vortenger

2013-10-08, 03:33 PM

Psyren

2013-10-08, 03:34 PM

Having a party slot occupied by a tier 4 instead of a higher tier isn't the best way to accomplish the goal either. Also, not every campaign starts at level 1.

As long as there is a speed bump there it doesn't matter if he is T1 or T5. You are T1; if you can cast, and have the right spells for the situation, you will very likely win. He is there to make sure you can cast. That's really all there is to it.

Well, if the guy wants to play a fighter regardless, he'll probably play one even if he's made redundant, obsolete and generally a drag on party resources.

I would argue that any group that treats him that way cares more about powergaming than their RL friendship. Which is a sad position to be in, but better he find out now and find a better group to play with than continue laboring under the assumption that they care about his character concept and RP goals.

Most BFC spells have pretty wide fields of application. It still gets the job I mentioned done. A Solid Fog centered on a monster with less than 50 ft. move speed pretty much guarantees he can't attack for at least 1 round.

This still depends on circumstance. Solid Fog won't do a thing to a creature that can burrow or teleport for instance. And it can be dispelled, or blown away. Not all battles take place on a holodeck.

ryu

2013-10-08, 04:09 PM

Except in that case, you need to buy a new pet every few levels, since it won't have an advancement path. Plus you'd have to deal with Handle Animal suckitude.

I know. That's why I said less than half his wealth by level rather than some pittance of a small amount. Still less expensive than a fighter by a country mile.

Psyren

2013-10-08, 04:12 PM

I know. That's why I said less than half his wealth by level rather than some pittance of a small amount. Still less expensive than a fighter by a country mile.

What's this about "expense?" The fighter gets his own WBL, he's not dipping into yours. The dog doesn't.

eggynack

2013-10-08, 04:17 PM

What's this about "expense?" The fighter gets his own WBL, he's not dipping into yours. The dog doesn't.
I think he's referring to opportunity cost again. The logic goes that you'd be better off in the two wizards and one dog party than in the one fighter one wizard party, or even in the wizard, fighter, and dog party, because meat shield is presumably not a goal that requires much filling. It's a little odd to consider opportunity cost from the perspective of class selection, because I doubt that people often look at the economics of what they play, but it makes logical sense on a theoretical macro level.

ryu

2013-10-08, 04:20 PM

It gets its own wealth by level if I awaken it, train it some PC levels by feeding weaker monsters and education, and if it's disobedient mindrape it.

It also won't demand rights to decide how it spends its share if mindraped.

Now lets see what happens if we don't use ridiculous game logic silliness shall we? Oh looks like the dungeons don't magically have less treasure for arbitrary reasons. The pet is better value either way.:smallamused:

IronFist

2013-10-08, 04:24 PM

I think he's referring to opportunity cost again. The logic goes that you'd be better off in the two wizards and one dog party than in the one fighter one wizard party, or even in the wizard, fighter, and dog party, because meat shield is presumably not a goal that requires much filling. It's a little odd to consider opportunity cost from the perspective of class selection, because I doubt that people often look at the economics of what they play, but it makes logical sense on a theoretical macro level.

This is the most ridiculous argument ever. By that logic, everyone should be playing Pun-Pun.

eggynack

2013-10-08, 04:28 PM

This is the most ridiculous argument ever. By that logic, everyone should be playing Pun-Pun.
That's not really the argument I made. I was saying that from a party power perspective, the opportunity cost of playing a low powered class is the high powered class you could be playing. I'm not saying that you necessarily need or want a high value class. It's just two different ways of saying the same thing, which is that wizards are generally better than fighters, or that fighters can be cheaply replaced. People don't play that way, but the game can be thought of in that way.

IronFist

2013-10-08, 04:31 PM

That's not really the argument I made. I was saying that from a party power perspective, the opportunity cost of playing a low powered class is the high powered class you could be playing. I'm not saying that you necessarily need or want a high value class. It's just two different ways of saying the same thing, which is that wizards are generally better than fighters, or that fighters can be cheaply replaced. People don't play that way, but the game can be thought of in that way.

So it's exactly what I said. OK.

eggynack

2013-10-08, 04:36 PM

So it's exactly what I said. OK.
Maybe, but not ridiculous at all. I mean, probably not with pun-pun, because then you need to consider the additional cost of having a book thrown at your head, but probably yes with wizards, assuming that your DM doesn't throw books at the people who play wizards. Really, it's all about the trade off between book throwing and power level, if you want to get into the complex give and take of Dungeons and Dragons.

Edit: There's also the trade off of not wanting to play a wizard, or screwing with the game's balance, but I was assuming that we're talking about party effectiveness here, and the relative power level of fighters and wizards.

ryu

2013-10-08, 04:38 PM

I've played games where everyone was pun-pun. It was actually FUN. Why? It's the most gloriously silly parts of DnD taken to the most extreme. What happens twelve pun-puns on two opposite sides decide to want each other dead? Fifty-fifty chance the universe explodes and it is AWESOME!

IronFist

2013-10-08, 04:44 PM

ryu

2013-10-08, 04:48 PM

You think advocating the concept of the fighter class as a bad design decision that should be abandoned on principle is any different from sneering at the all wizard or even all pun-pun party? Do you really?

eggynack

2013-10-08, 04:53 PM

ryu and eggynack, that's pretty much my definition of ridiculous. Glad you had fun with that, but it's very weird to try and impose those standards on others during online discussions.
I recently realized I have a lot more fun with D&D when I'm keeping my optimizing instincts in check and trying to make characters as opposed to builds. Your mileage may vary, of course.
But... we're trying to evaluate the power level of things. Evaluating the power level of things is important when we're trying to evaluate the power level of things, and that includes some discussion of how replaceable a fighter is. I don't know what you expect in a discussion about how best to fix something, but talking about game balance issues is going to be part of it.

Psyren

2013-10-08, 04:56 PM

That's not really the argument I made. I was saying that from a party power perspective, the opportunity cost of playing a low powered class is the high powered class you could be playing.

"Power" is a funny term. Give a brand new player fresh off the video game boat a wizard and I guarantee you they'll be grabbing magic missile and fireball, or trying to summon a "pet" at level 1. And that's just the ones that are familiar with RPGs at all - an even newer gamer will take one look at the spells chapter and flee in terror, or else expect the DM and party to lead them around like a lost puppy.

In short, T1 refers to potential power, not necessarily actual. The two are very often confused here on these boards, where we optimize day in day out and see the same arguments and class comparisons on a near-constant basis, but the folks who design a game don't have the luxury at aiming every aspect of that game at us.

So to sum up - if you had no chance of evoking a high level of power from the wizard, then the opportunity cost to you and to your group for not being one was in fact nil.

IronFist

2013-10-08, 05:23 PM

But... we're trying to evaluate the power level of things. Evaluating the power level of things is important when we're trying to evaluate the power level of things, and that includes some discussion of how replaceable a fighter is. I don't know what you expect in a discussion about how best to fix something, but talking about game balance issues is going to be part of it.

Are we? I thought we were discussing who should receive a buff spell.

eggynack

2013-10-08, 05:27 PM

Are we? I thought we were discussing who should receive a buff spell.
Is that what it is now? Things have become rather odd. I mean, the main topic of the thread is fixing polymorph, and knowing how best to fix polymorph requires some power level understanding. Anyways, I thought that Ryu was talking about having a dog based meatshield, rather than a fighter based meatshield, and using the free party slot to get double wizard action. There was also something about meat expenses factored in there, but I didn't exactly follow it.

IronFist

2013-10-08, 05:30 PM

Is that what it is now? Things have become rather odd. I mean, the main topic of the thread is fixing polymorph, and knowing how best to fix polymorph requires some power level understanding. Anyways, I thought that Ryu was talking about having a dog based meatshield, rather than a fighter based meatshield, and using the free party slot to get double wizard action. There was also something about meat expenses factored in there, but I didn't exactly follow it.

Well, the point with "getting another wizard there" does not even depend on you - it depends on someone wanting to play a wizard. That is the argument I took issue with - as long as you tell someone "don't play a Fighter, play a Wizard, we'll get a dog instead" you're one step away from saying "don't play anything other than Pun-Pun". D&D is not Final Fantasy Tactics.

EDIT: Nevermind, it's not like I play with you guys anyway, do whatever works for you. I'm just glad none of my players think like that.

ryu

2013-10-08, 05:31 PM

Is that what it is now? Things have become rather odd. I mean, the main topic of the thread is fixing polymorph, and knowing how best to fix polymorph requires some power level understanding. Anyways, I thought that Ryu was talking about having a dog based meatshield, rather than a fighter based meatshield, and using the free party slot to get double wizard action. There was also something about meat expenses factored in there, but I didn't exactly follow it.

Nah. I'd be fine with just one wizard and some meat not having to pay the fighters share. I even gave a contingency state if the game works on WBL involving awakening the pet, training it in some sort of PC levels, and mindraping it if it argues for its share of loot.

Edit: Again I don't NEED another wizard. Just a wizard not having to share loot with a fighter is worse off than a wizard who doesn't have to share and his pet of the week.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-08, 05:31 PM

D&D is not Final Fantasy Tactics.

Even then, you can still get through the game without running All Calculators All The Time.

IronFist

2013-10-08, 05:32 PM

Even then, you can still get through the game without running All Calculators All The Time.

Actually, you can do so easily. That was a surpisingly good comparison - optimizing too much in FFT makes the game far too easy.

Hammerpriest

2013-10-08, 05:38 PM

Actually, you can do so easily. That was a surpisingly good comparison - optimizing too much in FFT makes the game far too easy.

Except unlike FFT, in D&D/PF there's a GM who can scale encounters based on your level of optimization. So, regardless of how well you optimize, there should always be a challenge if the DM is an equal or greater optimizer than his players. There's a kind of merit to the all crunch nature of some high op games that leans more towards a tactical and strategical combat experience with giant rockets, but that's 3.X for you.

eggynack

2013-10-08, 05:38 PM

Well, the point with "getting another wizard there" does not even depend on you - it depends on someone wanting to play a wizard. That is the argument I took issue with - as long as you tell someone "don't play a Fighter, play a Wizard, we'll get a dog instead" you're one step away from saying "don't play anything other than Pun-Pun". D&D is not Final Fantasy Tactics.

I'm really not saying that that's what you can or should do. I'm just considering the system from that perspective, because it's rather interesting. The way I figure it, the cost is still there whether you care or do something about it or not. It's not a thing that reflects real game states, though I probably would try to have either the fighter or wizard change class, just so that there wouldn't be game imbalance.

Nah. I'd be fine with just one wizard and some meat not having to pay the fighters share. I even gave a contingency state if the game works on WBL involving awakening the pet, training it in some sort of PC levels, and mindraping it if it argues for its share of loot.

Ah, I get the argument now, though I might have before at some point. Theoretically, a party will only get a certain amount of gold in a quest, and your theory wizard would rather purchase a theory dog than split the money. It's a reasonable assertion, I guess, though it doesn't quite seem rooted in real game mechanics.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-08, 05:40 PM

Nah. I'd be fine with just one wizard and some meat not having to pay the fighters share. I even gave a contingency state if the game works on WBL involving awakening the pet, training it in some sort of PC levels, and mindraping it if it argues for its share of loot.

Edit: Again I don't NEED another wizard. Just a wizard not having to share loot with a fighter is worse off than a wizard who doesn't have to share and his pet of the week.

So what you're saying is you'd rather play with yourself.

IronFist

2013-10-08, 05:43 PM

So what you're saying is you'd rather play with yourself.

I see what you did there...

I'm really not saying that that's what you can or should do. I'm just considering the system from that perspective, because it's rather interesting. The way I figure it, the cost is still there whether you care or do something about it or not. It's not a thing that reflects real game states, though I probably would try to have either the fighter or wizard change class, just so that there wouldn't be game imbalance.

Have you ever played with a fighter and a wizard in the same game? That's what Psyren has been saying over and over - as long as you don't step on each other toes, it works just fine and that is why PF Polymorph is better. Now your Wizard can keep Polymorph as a panic button, like most fantasy wizards, and not make the Fighter obsolete. That is a plus on my book.

ryu

2013-10-08, 05:57 PM

So what you're saying is you'd rather play with yourself.

If an actual clone existed? Hell yeah. Have you ever actually taken a good hour or two of break time to just talk to yourself, or perhaps split your point of view between two imagined personalities? You share all your interests and know instinctively what the other side of the conversation feels like talking about. A clone would be like that only less taxing on the mind and less likely to make people accuse you of insanity.

Eggy: Again see the example of awakening pets, getting them class levels, mindraping them if they argue the right to keep their share, and going on as before. If we run on the games logic this is still a thing. If we run by what makes logical sense the situation doesn't even require silliness of any kind.

Vortenger

2013-10-08, 06:05 PM

Nah. I'd be fine with just one wizard and some meat not having to pay the fighters share. I even gave a contingency state if the game works on WBL involving awakening the pet, training it in some sort of PC levels, and mindraping it if it argues for its share of loot.

Edit: Again I don't NEED another wizard. Just a wizard not having to share loot with a fighter is worse off than a wizard who doesn't have to share and his pet of the week.

If you speak of using powerful 9th level evil based spells as a matter of course in your games, I don't think you play the same DnD most of us do...

Also, are all of your characters this casual with the lives of other sentient creatures? Don't Exalted much, eh?

ryu

2013-10-08, 06:10 PM

If you speak of using powerful 9th level evil based spells as a matter of course in your games, I don't think you play the same DnD most of us do...

Think Tippy style except I play more for sport than raw power. I also don't get the sport if I feel like I'm holding back. This tends to lead to campaigns that well... escalate rather quickly. That goes double if the DM isn't new to the experience and still comes back for more.

Edit: Dude my characters are casual with THEIR OWN LIVES. Deities being challenged isn't rare at high levels. They can afford casual because death is cheap even when the soul is destroyed in this game.

olentu

2013-10-08, 08:05 PM

Polymorph did way more than that and you know it. Special attacks are a very big deal, particularly things like Grab, Pounce, Constrict, Rake, enhanced senses, and additional movement modes. Shapeshifting gets you access to most or all of these without needing to spend a single feat. To call it just a strength boost is shortsighted, and to call a fighter bad simply because he can't pick up these abilities at the drop of a hat is just as shortsighted.

Oh it is very true that polymorph does more then just change stats, however your answer was in response to the question of why it was bad that polymorph changed stats.

I was assuming that if you had problems with polymorph granting special abilities you would have included it in this answer.

2) The "less interesting" bit is subjective so there's no real way to debate this. The new versions of the spell don't do enough for you, they do more than enough for me, tomaytoe tomahtoe let's call the whole thing off.

However you seemed to merely be saying that the range of granted abilities was not sufficiently important to the non-gish melee wizard problem for it to be more then personal preference.

LordBlades

2013-10-08, 10:33 PM

@LordBlads- After reading the last couple pages of your posts, there seems to be a strong 'The Fighter isn't a strong enough tier' approach to your language. I must point out that if you're biased against a class, you may be providing similarly biased information, which when objectively viewed may not stand to scrutiny. These last couple of pages are as such. Psyren and the others have been completely accurate. Please re-read their posts and take in the information again.

That has been my experience so far over quite a few years of gaming. I've either played myself or ran in party with both fighters, as well as alternatives (CoDzillas, necromancers, summoners etc.). And honestly, I've never seen the fighter shine. Every time the alternatives have proven at least good enough, while spending less than 100% of their character on doing fighter-y stuff. And I just don't see how PF radically altered this.

As long as there is a speed bump there it doesn't matter if he is T1 or T5. You are T1; if you can cast, and have the right spells for the situation, you will very likely win. He is there to make sure you can cast. That's really all there is to it.

Agreed. What I don't agree is that the fighter can do this job as well as or better than a higher tier character.

I would argue that any group that treats him that way cares more about powergaming than their RL friendship. Which is a sad position to be in, but better he find out now and find a better group to play with than continue laboring under the assumption that they care about his character concept and RP goals.

Depends on the specifics. If player A wants to play a fighter, and then player B comes up with a wizard built for replacing the fighter then yeah, player B is being a jackass. But if player A comes up with a fighter after players B, C and D have already decided on wizard, druid and cleric, he has nobody to blame but himself.

This still depends on circumstance. Solid Fog won't do a thing to a creature that can burrow or teleport for instance. And it can be dispelled, or blown away. Not all battles take place on a holodeck.

Agreed with burrowing, but Teleporting still wastes your standard action usually, so Solid Fog still gave the summoner one round of space, which is what he needed to complete the spell. Same goes for dispelling and blowing away. They cost actions (and in case of dispelling, they might also fail).

Psyren

2013-10-08, 10:49 PM

Agreed. What I don't agree is that the fighter can do this job as well as or better than a higher tier character.

Where did I or anyone else say that? :smallconfused:

Agreed with burrowing, but Teleporting still wastes your standard action usually, so Solid Fog still gave the summoner one round of space, which is what he needed to complete the spell. Same goes for dispelling and blowing away. They cost actions (and in case of dispelling, they might also fail).

"Blowing away" can simply be due to fighting somewhere windy. And there are move- and swift-action teleports. (I meant the subschool there, not the spell itself.) The point is that there can always be situations where a given bfc is wrong for the job, or the wizard didn't prepare enough of the right one.

LordBlades

2013-10-09, 12:59 AM

Where did I or anyone else say that? :smallconfused:

It was at least inferred(or so I saw it) when ppl started arguing that fighter's role couldn't be replaced by casters.

"Blowing away" can simply be due to fighting somewhere windy. And there are move- and swift-action teleports. (I meant the subschool there, not the spell itself.) The point is that there can always be situations where a given bfc is wrong for the job, or the wizard didn't prepare enough of the right one.

Did PF add many more such abilities? In 3.5 they aren't all that common, especially to monsters.

Also, while battlefield conditions can and sometimes will invalidate a BFC spell, odds are the caster has a few others. If battlefied conditions invalidate a fighter (equally possible) odds are the fighter player doesn't have another character on hand for that fight

LordBlades

2013-10-09, 01:08 AM

Yes, but if you do low optimization, the GM is either going to a)Allow it with no issues, or b)Gently guide you towards some better options. High optimization runs into that problem of 'You do HOW much damage in a single round? No. Leap attack+Shock Trooper no longer works like that, good day sir.'

Some people can talk their issues out, but...have you read some of the problems on this board? High op brings about much more drama than low op.

And that's why you talk stuff first with the GM. Bringing anything to the table vastly different in power than the game he wants to run is bad form IMO. If the game is about an evil wizard cabal trying to subvert the established world ordrer, then probably a 'Hulk smash' low Will save fighter is probably not an appropriate character.

And even if many GMs allow low-op more easily(it doesn't ruin the game for everyone when out of hand), it doesn't mean all of them would be willing to tailor emcounters so that s givrn limited charactet csn contribute.

Also, a lot of high-op drama is caused by low-op players, not GMs. When a low-op player is bothered by the high-op of another player he often complains, whereas in a reverse situation a high-op playet would offer optimization advice first

Der_DWSage

2013-10-09, 02:20 AM

Depends on the specifics. If player A wants to play a fighter, and then player B comes up with a wizard built for replacing the fighter then yeah, player B is being a jackass. But if player A comes up with a fighter after players B, C and D have already decided on wizard, druid and cleric, he has nobody to blame but himself.

Welp. If you hold this to be a self-evident truth, then I'm afraid nothing fruitful can come of further discussion. We disagree at a fundamental level that Fighters can be useful and/or beneficial to a party.

I bid you good day and good luck in your future endeavors.

LordBlades

2013-10-09, 03:26 AM

Welp. If you hold this to be a self-evident truth, then I'm afraid nothing fruitful can come of further discussion. We disagree at a fundamental level that Fighters can be useful and/or beneficial to a party.

I bid you good day and good luck in your future endeavors.

I don't hold it as a self-evident truth, it's just what my experience with the system has shown me :that fighters don't really add much once the rest of the party goes past a certain level of power and that the party would be overall stronger with another character in that slot.

Of course, you're welcome to disagree if your experience differs.

Psyren

2013-10-09, 08:27 AM

It was at least inferred(or so I saw it) when ppl started arguing that fighter's role couldn't be replaced by casters.

You mean you inferred it. That has nothing to do with me.

Did PF add many more such abilities? In 3.5 they aren't all that common, especially to monsters.

Ability demographics don't really matter when one person is engineering all the combat in the game.

Also, while battlefield conditions can and sometimes will invalidate a BFC spell, odds are the caster has a few others.

Certainly - but does he have enough, or the right ones?

LordBlades

2013-10-09, 08:37 AM

You mean you inferred it. That has nothing to do with me.

It has been stated that a fighter is difficult to replace by spells.By extension this means a fighter is difficult to replace by a caster. Isn't this practically saying that a fighter fills a certain role more effective than a caster?

Ability demographics don't really matter when one
person is engineering all the combat in the game.

It does when that one person tries to run a realistic world and/or doesn't want to tailor encounters for a certain party member.

Certainly - but does he have enough, or the right ones?

He certainly has more than a fighter denied his one trick has options.

IronFist

2013-10-09, 08:40 AM

Except unlike FFT, in D&D/PF there's a GM who can scale encounters based on your level of optimization. So, regardless of how well you optimize, there should always be a challenge if the DM is an equal or greater optimizer than his players. There's a kind of merit to the all crunch nature of some high op games that leans more towards a tactical and strategical combat experience with giant rockets, but that's 3.X for you.

You mean if the DM has a ridiculously huge amount of time on his hands. Crafing an interesting encounter takes time; crafting an interesting encounter for a high OP party takes forever. I know, I did it several times. It takes way too much energy and time that could be spent on other, more interesting facets of the game. When I realized lower OP actually led to more interesting encounters and allowed me to play monsters straight from the bestiaries... well, it was eye opening.

Psyren

2013-10-09, 08:45 AM

It has been stated that a fighter is difficult to replace by spells.

By who and where? I never said that.

It does when that one person tries to run a realistic world and/or doesn't want to tailor encounters for a certain party member.

A realistic world is also one where any enemy with two brain cells to rub together will come equipped with ways to deal with magic. For the dumber ones, some creatures negate caster tricks just by existing, such as ooze vs. glitterdust.

Action economy doesn't matter for the DM either. As an extreme measure, he can even bring along an enemy caster who does nothing but counterspell. This is not something I would do of course, but it's not unreasonable in the context of the world either.

He certainly has more than a fighter denied his one trick has options.

No argument here, but the point is to encourage teamwork, not to shut down one player or another.

ryu

2013-10-09, 08:47 AM

You mean if the DM has a ridiculously huge amount of time on his hands. Crafing an interesting encounter takes time; crafting an interesting encounter for a high OP party takes forever. I know, I did it several times. It takes way too much energy and time that could be spent on other, more interesting facets of the game. When I realized lower OP actually led to more interesting encounters and allowed me to play monsters straight from the bestiaries... well, it was eye opening.

What do you mean? Equivalent number of spell casters not deliberately picking weak spells and taking a few reasonable precautions. Now boss encounters that are expected to be legitimately threatening to the party? Those are hard. Then you have to make a team thinking on the level the pcs do.

IronFist

2013-10-09, 08:51 AM

What do you mean? Equivalent number of spell casters not deliberately picking weak spells and taking a few reasonable precautions. Now boss encounters that are expected to be legitimately threatening to the party? Those are hard. Then you have to make a team thinking on the level the pcs do.

Exactly. Way too much trouble. Setting up a challenging encounter for my low OP group is easy - I select a few thematic monsters, select appropriate terrain and see how they deal with it. With my other group, I have to either throw a lot of monsters at once (which is a pain to run) or spend hours creating characters.
Optimizing is a very fun minigame, but sometimes it stands in the way of your actual gaming. It was actually a common saying in 339, you have to know when to stop.
PhoenixInferno used to say that most people that kept on hailing high OP as the one true gospel did not get to play much, or they would get tired really fast (he did).

ryu

2013-10-09, 08:55 AM

Hours? Basic competent wizard not operating to full potential but no slouch should take minutes not hours. I mean so many of the standard tricks are easily remembered gimmies...

IronFist

2013-10-09, 09:01 AM

Hours? Basic competent wizard not operating to full potential but no slouch should take minutes not hours. I mean so many of the standard tricks are easily remembered gimmies...

"Basic competent wizard" is not high optimization. Encounters need to memorable and adversaries need to be unique. If your NPCs jus amount to "basic competent wizard", you are not a DM I'd want to play with.

Story

2013-10-09, 09:05 AM

Exactly. Way too much trouble. Setting up a challenging encounter for my low OP group is easy - I select a few thematic monsters, select appropriate terrain and see how they deal with it. With my other group, I have to either throw a lot of monsters at once (which is a pain to run) or spend hours creating characters.
Optimizing is a very fun minigame, but sometimes it stands in the way of your actual gaming. It was actually a common saying in 339, you have to know when to stop.
PhoenixInferno used to say that most people that kept on hailing high OP as the one true gospel did not get to play much, or they would get tired really fast (he did).

Couldn't you just bump up the CRs a bit? Just treat everyone as a level higher then they are.

Psyren

2013-10-09, 09:09 AM

Couldn't you just bump up the CRs a bit? Just treat everyone as a level higher then they are.

That quote was Ironfist, not me :smalltongue:

LordBlades

2013-10-09, 09:16 AM

By who and where? I never said that.

I never said you did. Der DWsage did on page 4. Sorry if you misunderstood me

LordBlades

2013-10-09, 09:34 AM

Exactly. Way too much trouble. Setting up a challenging encounter for my low OP group is easy - I select a few thematic monsters, select appropriate terrain and see how they deal with it. With my other group, I have to either throw a lot of monsters at once (which is a pain to run) or spend hours creating characters.
Optimizing is a very fun minigame, but sometimes it stands in the way of your actual gaming. It was actually a common saying in 339, you have to know when to stop.
PhoenixInferno used to say that most people that kept on hailing high OP as the one true gospel did not get to play much, or they would get tired really fast (he did).

I somewhat agree. IMO mid op is the sweet spot. Chars competent enough so you don't need to worry about tailoring encounters to them(which also means you can throw more varied situations at them) but weak enough so you don't need to spend hours on every encounter.

ryu

2013-10-09, 10:35 AM

"Basic competent wizard" is not high optimization. Encounters need to memorable and adversaries need to be unique. If your NPCs jus amount to "basic competent wizard", you are not a DM I'd want to play with.

Colorful memorable encounters come from a sense of understanding the motivations of a given enemy, using that enemy to cement the ideals of the enemy organization if affiliated, rattling the convictions of the party, or any combination of the above. This is also work that should be done in low op.

Basic competent group of wizards involved with any of the above tropes is fine for an encounter. It also doesn't take much effort. Bosses can take hours to make in high op, but as a/the lynchpin of the campaign that's to be expected. Don't cut corners with BBEGs.

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-10-09, 01:14 PM

Sorry to interrupt the "fighters suck" discussion with a stupid question, but...why does polymorph need to be a combat buff at all? I mean, from page 1 people have been assuming that wizards are polymorphing into hydras and trolls and such to make the fighter feel small in the pants. However:

It would, but it's also not very fun. Shapeshifting is the toolbox discipline - "I need to swim - aquatic form! I need to climb - monkey/cat form! I need to fly - bird form!"

This actually shows how some times what seems to be a good fix can accidentally cause more problems. For a Sorcerer, Polymorph tends to be a "Go to" spell when they need to overcome some types of challenges. Can't fly? Polymorph. Can't breath under water? Polymorph. Can't carry the fighter that's been turned to stone out of harms way? Polymorph!

The main problem being discussed here with the complete-stat-replacement "the exact Monster Manual stat block and nothing else" version of polymorph (which I personally favor for simplicity and verisimilitude reasons) is that a level X wizard can turn into an X HD creature which can be as good or better in combat than a level X fighter. (There are also issues with turning into a critter with spellcasting or other useful abilities to be used on the party's behalf, but those aren't unique to polymorphing.)

Well, just like the summon monster line can't summon CR=CL minions, don't let polymorph turn the caster into CR=CL forms! If you cut the HD limit from HD=CL to HD=CL/2, for instance, then a troll form (CR 5, available at CL 6 in core, now available at CL 12) goes from being a combat monster comparable to a fighter to a utility form you use if you want to track things or pass through a constantly-damaging environment, and a pyro- or cryohydra (CR 6, available at CL 5 in core, now available at CL 10) goes from being a TPK waiting to happen to a free 1/10-volume empowered fireball every few rounds. Sure, you can still use flying forms, forms with poison, or other interesting forms to mix it up in combat, but then it becomes a legitimate tradeoff ("I can turn into an arrowhawk to be a flying artillery platform, but then I can't drop any control spells...") instead of a no-brainer combat strategy.

Suddenly polymorphing goes from being a fighter-screwing combat buff to the Swiss-army-knife utility spell it usually is in the fiction. Let other spells be used for the "turn into something big and nasty and bite people's faces off" combat buffs--preferably spells closer to the bite of the wereX line (spells that give you a few straightforward self-contained benefits) than to the beast shape line (spell that still require all the combat-time dumpster diving and menu-picking of polymorphing without the benefit of giving you unusual abilities)--and leave the combat-appropriate shapeshifting schtick to classes that do that instead of, not on top of, having a tier-1 spell list and other perks.

Svata

2013-10-09, 02:14 PM

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-10-09, 04:12 PM

That is problematic because once you start getting to higher levels, HD is sometimes a lot more than the CR. Maybe have it be CR based-rather than HD based? But then you have to deal with the fact that CR isn't always a very accurate representation of a monster's challenge, and some things that would make a good monster for its CR wouldn't be very good on a PC... There are just a lot of issues with being able to change into whatever you want.

Granted, the HD=CL/2 version was an off-the-cuff choice to use for my example; before I made an actual houserule for my table, I'd give more than a few seconds' thought to HD vs. CR and other concerns. Maybe even write up a limited list of monsters that can be turned into, summon monster style.

But the point remains that everyone seems to be trying to fix polymorphing as a combat buff, when from both a fiction and a balance standpoint polymorphing-as-utility-toolkit is much more desirable; do the latter, and the overshadowing-the-fighter problem disappears and balancing it is much easier. Heck, in AD&D polymorph other imposed a system shock roll to see if you survived the transformation and a check to see if you retain your personality instead of becoming the creature in mind as well as body, and polymorph self was closer to alter self in terms of the benefits it granted, so it's not like routinely polymorphing the fighter or the wizard before combat is a sacred cow that needs to be preserved.

IronFist

2013-10-09, 04:17 PM

I somewhat agree. IMO mid op is the sweet spot. Chars competent enough so you don't need to worry about tailoring encounters to them(which also means you can throw more varied situations at them) but weak enough so you don't need to spend hours on every encounter.

Exactly.

Colorful memorable encounters come from a sense of understanding the motivations of a given enemy, using that enemy to cement the ideals of the enemy organization if affiliated, rattling the convictions of the party, or any combination of the above. This is also work that should be done in low op.
No, that makes for a memorable character.
A memorable encounter stands on it's own. It is interesting as a game instead of being interesting as a story. There is no point in using a heavy ruleset like 3.5 if you're not going to make it fun, interesting and memorable.

Basic competent group of wizards involved with any of the above tropes is fine for an encounter. It also doesn't take much effort. Bosses can take hours to make in high op, but as a/the lynchpin of the campaign that's to be expected. Don't cut corners with BBEGs.
So your high op campaigns are cakewalk encounter after cakewalk encounter until a boss shows up. And let's hope you figured out the rocket tag just perfectly, because otherwise it ends before he gets his turn.
Yeah, not my kind of game at all.

ryu

2013-10-09, 04:29 PM

Individual encounters aren't meant to be legitimate threats to the party in themselves silly. That's a basic assumption of the game. The party should be sad if they had to use any resources that aren't easy to recover in those fights.

The BBEG on the other hand? He's the centerpiece of the campaign. He's the boss fight. He's the one you know by name and go out of your way to learn everything about him you can through scrying and other divinations. He's the one who's supposed to be on your level and if ANYONE is to kill you it should be HIM.

IronFist

2013-10-09, 06:46 PM

Individual encounters aren't meant to be legitimate threats to the party in themselves silly. That's a basic assumption of the game. The party should be sad if they had to use any resources that aren't easy to recover in those fights.
You're supposed to spend 1/4 of your resources in an average fight of equal CR. :smallconfused:
That is an assumption the game is based on.

The BBEG on the other hand? He's the centerpiece of the campaign. He's the boss fight. He's the one you know by name and go out of your way to learn everything about him you can through scrying and other divinations. He's the one who's supposed to be on your level and if ANYONE is to kill you it should be HIM.
I'm sorry, your assumptions are very different from the way D&D and Pathfinder were designed. Glad you enjoy your games whatever way they are, but that is not the default presented in Dungeon Master's Guide.

ryu

2013-10-09, 07:05 PM

1/4 resources amounts to what? A few spellslots and some hp if you're not good at life. Spellslots come back the next day and healing isn't a difficult thing to do.

Also what the hell kind of game doesn't have the main villain as the most difficult encounter of the campaign? Anything else would be an anti-climax of the highest order.

Story

2013-10-09, 07:47 PM

Also what the hell kind of game doesn't have the main villain as the most difficult encounter of the campaign? Anything else would be an anti-climax of the highest order.

Well of the two 3.5 campaigns I've been in, one ended for RL reasons before we even saw the BBEG (And that was after over a year and a half of playing), while the second one seems to be a series of one shots with only hints of an overarching story so far.

Maybe the DMs I've gotten just don't like planning intricate plots.

IronFist

2013-10-09, 09:18 PM

1/4 resources amounts to what? A few spellslots and some hp if you're not good at life. Spellslots come back the next day and healing isn't a difficult thing to do.
1/4 resources amounts to 1/4 resources. Charges in items, spells, hp, a bunch of stuff. You're expected to have 4 of those per day. You're expected the end your adventuring day drained and that last encounter at 1/4 of your resources is supposed to be a very close one.
So... no, cakewalks are not supposed to be default. In fact, the DMG specifically suggests giving less XP for cakewalks. Again, I'm not saying you're playing 'wrong' or anything, just that you can't assume this is the default state of things, because it clearly isn't.

Also what the hell kind of game doesn't have the main villain as the most difficult encounter of the campaign? Anything else would be an anti-climax of the highest order.
The main villain can be (and should, in most games) a part of the most difficult encounter in the campaign, but he does not need to be some kind of superpowered demigod. A main villain can (and should) have mooks, traps and maybe some custom stuff he could use in his favor.
You don't have to punch people in the face all the time, anyway. In some campaigns, just finding out what the villain was planning and confronting him with it can lead to him surrendering.

ryu

2013-10-09, 09:27 PM

I think you're measuring resources as a finite quantity that the party isn't capable of getting back with the most basic effort regardless of expenditure. Considering the things that go on at high levels if the party is trying? Loss of 1/4 doesn't stay that way for long.

Mooks aren't limited to the use of the enemy. As a matter of fact minions are often a thing on both sides. Usually brought in on caster power from both sides. Secondly in a world where wizards are practical and not stupid on average as standard encounters an enemy spellcaster needs to actually fit what a wizard is supposed to be in order to be an actual challenge. By the standards of most what that means is that compared to the common rabble he is functionally a god or demigod whose goals for dominating the local continent if not the world are legitimate risks.

IronFist

2013-10-09, 09:44 PM

I think you're measuring resources as a finite quantity that the party isn't capable of getting back with the most basic effort regardless of expenditure. Considering the things that go on at high levels if the party is trying? Loss of 1/4 doesn't stay that way for long.
So you only play at high levels, then?

Mooks aren't limited to the use of the enemy. As a matter of fact minions are often a thing on both sides. Usually brought in on caster power from both sides. Secondly in a world where wizards are practical and not stupid on average as standard encounters an enemy spellcaster needs to actually fit what a wizard is supposed to be in order to be an actual challenge. By the standards of most what that means is that compared to the common rabble he is functionally a god or demigod whose goals for dominating the local continent if not the world are legitimate risks.
By the standards of most...? Oh, you mean by your elitist standards. We're done here. I'm glad to know I will never play in the same table as you. Cheers.

ryu

2013-10-09, 09:49 PM

So you only play at high levels, then?

By the standards of most...? Oh, you mean by your elitist standards. We're done here. I'm glad to know I will never play in the same table as you. Cheers.

At low levels over ninety percent of my resources are daily replenishing free spells and effects. I can lose literally almost all of it at no charge.

No. By my standards he's just actually pretty decent rather than baseline. People who enjoy tier 3 games would consider him a world-breaking monstrosity. Notice that tier 3 is also a statistically high large part of the playerbase.

LordBlades

2013-10-09, 10:51 PM

The 1/4 resources thing might be the assumption the system is based on, but in practice it doesn't really work. At all. Take various categories of resources for example:

HP (common resource to everyone): wands exist (lesser vigor and CLW) and their cost is rather trivial compared to the benefits (lesser vigor is 750 gp for 550 HP healed), which means any non-total HP loss can be reversed in a matter of minutes, so unless encounters a chained in a very narrow time space, HP loss is irrelevant.

Per-encounter and always-on abilities (incarnum, warlocks, DFA, TOB, Binders etc.): barring some very specific circumstances (like dispelling 1/4 of one's soulmelds) it's completely irrelevant.

Spell slots: past very low levels (and even there with some optimization), you have enough slots that it's very hard to have an encounter last enough to cast 1/4 of your spells in it. Spell depletion is often qualitative for prepared casters(you've already cast the spell you needed for this situation) rather than quantitative and hardly an issue for spontaneous casters.

Other per-day resources (like Smite Evil etc.): this is probably the only category where 1/4 resources spent per encounter works, bot not that many classes have it.

Regarding dumb wizards, I'm with Ryu on this one: the sight of a (NPC) wizard slinging fireballs kinda kills the mood for me. If he's a singular example, he should be the laughing stock of the wizardly world, not portrayed as something threatening. If he's the norm, I highly doubt a multitude of int let's say 25+ individuals have not, over the course of several generations, realized what the CO community (of much less than 25 int on average) has realized in several years.

Actually, I deeply dislike incompetent NPCs in general. I find a competent lower-potential character (like a decent let's say beguiler or hell, even fighter) as fitting much better in the world than an incompetent wizard or cleric.

IronFist

2013-10-09, 11:12 PM

The world is full of incompetent people. A world where everyone acts optimally lacks even more verossimilitude than D&D already does.

ryu

2013-10-09, 11:23 PM

The world is full of incompetent people. A world where everyone acts optimally lacks even more verossimilitude than D&D already does.

In a world where the closest the incompetent have to the coddling they do in this world is the often imperfect protection of murderhobos and the odd ineffectual kingdom/empire it simply doesn't make sense for those incompetents to not be either dead or directly under the command of someone competent as a resource. This holds true under all alignments even if the control is exerted with different connotations. Why? The world of DnD is pretty demonstrably less gentle than our own in pretty much every way imaginable.

Pickford

2013-10-10, 02:32 AM

Two easy fixes to Polymorph would be

1. Each polymorph spell/wildshape ability/etc gives you the ability to change into one form and only that form. (Maybe drop it to a third level spell). So you don't learn "Polymorph into any creature within these limitations", you learn "Polymorph into one chosen creature within these limitations."

2. Limiting the sizes available. The druid in the shape of a bear riding a dire bear while summoning bears isn't as scary if he's in the shape of a medium-size black bear (CR 2) instead of a large brown bear (CR 4). This could be a straight ban on Large and Huge, or just move them up to higher character levels/spell levels.

Since those fixes haven't been used, there must be something I'm not seeing.

Polymorph is just fine. It's a 4th level spell, which means you already have access to Dispel Magic.

Dispel Magic > Polymorph.

Any questions?

eggynack

2013-10-10, 02:56 AM

Polymorph is just fine. It's a 4th level spell, which means you already have access to Dispel Magic.

Dispel Magic > Polymorph.

Any questions?
Well, it's a fourth level spell, so this is a defense that only casters will have access to. That means that it does nothing to mitigate the whole "magic must defeat magic" issue that is, in many ways, at the core of this discussion. Dispel magic isn't going to succeed every time, whereas polymorph will necessarily succeed every time, because there're no rolls. It's unclear if you can dispel spells that are on the wizard, rather than an area or the wizard himself, so you might hit the wrong spell. He might have a ring of counterspells, tuned to dispel, which is a reasonably cheap item, and not the least common one in existence. This isn't a perfect plan, in other words. It's a pretty good one though.

Pickford

2013-10-10, 02:59 AM

Well, it's a fourth level spell, so this is a defense that only casters will have access to. That means that it does nothing to mitigate the whole "magic must defeat magic" issue that is, in many ways, at the core of this discussion. Dispel magic isn't going to succeed every time, whereas polymorph will necessarily succeed every time, because there're no rolls. It's unclear if you can dispel spells that are on the wizard, rather than an area or the wizard himself, so you might hit the wrong spell. He might have a ring of counterspells, tuned to dispel, which is a reasonably cheap item, and not the least common one in existence. This isn't a perfect plan, in other words. It's a pretty good one though.

Well, there's also the: What is a Wizard going to turn into (with regular polymorph) that can't just be killed? It's very flexible, yes, but it's not exactly a deal-breaker.

Psyren

2013-10-10, 07:41 AM

Notice that tier 3 is also a statistically high large part of the playerbase.

That's a pretty weird statistic considering there's only one T3 class in core. Source?

ryu

2013-10-10, 07:52 AM

That's a pretty weird statistic considering there's only one T3 class in core. Source?

Class list of the various games that pay out in the surrounding area. It's also a bit late for core only to be all people have.

Psyren

2013-10-10, 08:13 AM

Class list of the various games that pay out in the surrounding area.

Your "surrounding area" is not "a large part of the playerbase" by definition.

ryu

2013-10-10, 09:42 AM

Your "surrounding area" is not "a large part of the playerbase" by definition.

You may complain of survey sample size considering only about one hundred groups worth of data can be polled. That is a much stricter standard than many surveys though.

IronFist

2013-10-10, 09:54 AM

Your average D&D player does not even know about the tier system.

LordBlades

2013-10-10, 10:35 AM

Your average D&D player does not even know about the tier system.

That's pretty much impossible to prove right. Or wrong for that matter. So far nobody has been able to produce an 'average D&D player' for us to look at.

Red Fel

2013-10-10, 10:43 AM

That's pretty much impossible to prove right. Or wrong for that matter. So far nobody has been able to produce an 'average D&D player' for us to look at.

Not so! Recently, a Pew study, commissioned in 2010, made the following findings:

The average D&D player is named Tom. He has brown hair and eyes, is Caucasian, and stands 5'3". He lives in an apartment in the midtown area. On Wednesdays he goes shopping. He enjoys tailgates and opera. He has a bitter love-hate relationship with writer/director Joss Whedon. His favorite foods include sushi, chicken, and a chateaubriand with balsamic reduction glaze and a side of fingerling potatoes. His hobbies include fencing, backgammon, and collecting rare molluscs. He is employed by a high-powered firm downtown, but finds no satisfaction in his work. His favorite word is "admiral." He does not play D&D.

There! Problem solved! We now know everything we need to about the average D&D player!

Fax Celestis

2013-10-10, 11:04 AM

Not so! Recently, a Pew study, commissioned in 2010, made the following findings:

The average D&D player is named Tom. He has brown hair and eyes, is Caucasian, and stands 5'3". He lives in an apartment in the midtown area. On Wednesdays he goes shopping. He enjoys tailgates and opera. He has a bitter love-hate relationship with writer/director Joss Whedon. His favorite foods include sushi, chicken, and a chateaubriand with balsamic reduction glaze and a side of fingerling potatoes. His hobbies include fencing, backgammon, and collecting rare molluscs. He is employed by a high-powered firm downtown, but finds no satisfaction in his work. His favorite word is "admiral." He does not play D&D.

There! Problem solved! We now know everything we need to about the average D&D player!

oh my god its like looking in a mirror

Psyren

2013-10-10, 12:16 PM

You may complain of survey sample size considering only about one hundred groups worth of data can be polled. That is a much stricter standard than many surveys though.

And where is this survey published?

Well, it's a fourth level spell, so this is a defense that only casters will have access to. That means that it does nothing to mitigate the whole "magic must defeat magic" issue that is, in many ways, at the core of this discussion.

Why shouldn't magic defeat magic past a certain level? The monsters certainly aren't getting any less magical as you climb the CR pole, and neither are the items.

ryu

2013-10-10, 12:30 PM

Private google doc. I use it to point people new to the area at groups likely to suit them. Never had a displeased customer on that front yet.

johnbragg

2013-10-10, 12:31 PM

And where is this survey published?

Why shouldn't magic defeat magic past a certain level? The monsters certainly aren't getting any less magical as you climb the CR pole, and neither are the items.

Because it leaves the fighter-types standing around holding their, er, beatsticks. Which is a systemic flaw in a game organized around the idea of "let's pretend to be big fantasy heroes with swords and magic"

Logic says that Conan vs Merlin is not a fair fight. But I think that the game's more enjoyable when it is, assuming that some kind of effort has gone into explaining why it is. ("I can gut you with this sword faster than you can chant the hour-long invocation to turn me into a puddle of chunky soup" would be a good start, but there's a lot more to it.)

Psyren

2013-10-10, 12:31 PM

Oh, of course. I'm floored.

Because it leaves the fighter-types standing around holding their, er, beatsticks. Which is a systemic flaw in a game organized around the idea of "let's pretend to be big fantasy heroes with swords and magic"

What about magic swords?

johnbragg

2013-10-10, 12:33 PM

What about magic swords?

Unless Conan has a sword of antimagic field and an amulet of allowing contradictions, I think Merlin's got him beat.

Red Fel

2013-10-10, 12:40 PM

Oh, of course. I'm floored.

What about magic swords?

It's not about the sword, it's about the wielder.

Think about your favorite fantasy movie, book, or video game that involved a protagonist swordsman going up against an evil wizard. Yes, sometimes it was the fact that he had the magic sword which could overcome the villain's power. But it was also often the case that the hero had training, or experience, or something that gave him the wherewithal to avoid the spells, parry the blows, and defeat the evil wizard with only his reflexes, his wits, his training and his strength.

... and a magic sword.

Now look at D&D. No matter how many +X modifiers or Colliding Warning Evilbane Planet-eating enhancements you place on that sword, it's still a beatstick, and the wizard will stay outside of its range. Or turn you to stone before you can reach him. Or turn you into a lizard. Or cast disjunction on the weapon. Or tear open a portal and fling you into the future where his evil is law. Or any number of things.

And your reflexes, wits, training and strength? He has them too, on a simulacrum. Or an Aleax. Or he has a summoned monster that can fight you instead. Or he just does one of the aforementioned things to you.

I understand that casters are more powerful in D&D; that's a function of the mechanical system at play. But I take issue with the idea that things should be that way. I take issue with the idea that you must overcome a caster with another caster.

Just because the mechanics are broken, doesn't mean they should be broken.

Psyren

2013-10-10, 12:42 PM

Unless Conan has a sword of antimagic field and an amulet of allowing contradictions, I think Merlin's got him beat.

The idea is not for Conan to beat Merlin - the idea is for them both to beat the same storm giant, or dragon, or balor.

And shouldn't it be Arthur beating Morgan le Fay in that analogy? And didn't he need Merlin's help anyway? So what's the problem?

Red Fel

2013-10-10, 12:47 PM

The idea is not for Conan to beat Merlin - the idea is for them both to beat the same storm giant, or dragon, or balor.

And shouldn't it be Arthur beating Morgan le Fay in that analogy? And didn't he need Merlin's help anyway? So what's the problem?

Admittedly, I think the reason Conan beat Thulsa Doom was that Conan was optimized for critfishing and Power Attack, and Thulsa was totally non-optimized. I mean, who prepares "Turn Into a Snake" at that level?

But that was a key aspect of Arthur - he was supposed to be a mortal symbol of overcoming mortal perils and mortal vices. Merlin represented supernatural aid against supernatural menace. Arthur is a bad example.

Conan is a better example, because he was written in a world where there were evil wizards and mighty warriors and so forth. And he killed all of them. That was his thing. And he didn't use +4 armor (or any armor, for that matter). He had a sword, a loincloth, and the Answer to the Riddle of Steel. (Hint: It involves being a burly bada**.)

In D&D, Conan would be dead a hundred times over before he got close to Thulsa Doom's throne room.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-10, 01:14 PM

The idea is not for Conan to beat Merlin - the idea is for them both to beat the same storm giant, or dragon, or balor.

And shouldn't it be Arthur beating Morgan le Fay in that analogy? And didn't he need Merlin's help anyway? So what's the problem?

People often forget that Excalibur wasn't just a sword with a name. It was a magic sword (as was its scabbard) forged of meteoric iron by master smiths on the isle of Avalon. Excalibur blinded opponents when drawn, could cut through iron as if it were paper, and returned to its rightful wielder regardless of who was holding it (aka a blinding teleporting adamantine bastard sword +1. Furthermore, the scabbard made the wearer unable to perish from physical damage (aka a scabbard of stoneskin).

johnbragg

2013-10-10, 01:33 PM

The idea is not for Conan to beat Merlin - the idea is for them both to beat the same storm giant, or dragon, or balor.

And shouldn't it be Arthur beating Morgan le Fay in that analogy? And didn't he need Merlin's help anyway? So what's the problem?

That's kind of the ideal balance--the wizard buffs the fighter who kills the beastie with his beatstick. Not so much the fighter meatshields the wizard who kills the beastie with his spells.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-10, 01:41 PM

That's kind of the ideal balance--the wizard buffs the fighter who kills the beastie with his beatstick. Not so much the fighter meatshields the wizard who kills the beastie with his spells.

No it isn't. All you've done is change the passive player from the fighter to the wizard.

johnbragg

2013-10-10, 01:47 PM

No it isn't. All you've done is change the passive player from the fighter to the wizard.

Is it, if the wizard has hit the beastie with a couple of Enervates, a Ray of Enfeeblement or two, a couple of Doom-type spells swiped from the cleric list, Dispelled the beastie's buffs, and hit the beastie a couple of times with mind-affecting lose-your-next-action type spells? And [i]summon monster[i]'ed up something to flank the beastie? Is letting Mr. Beatstick do the bulk of the actual HP damage that much to ask?

Fax Celestis

2013-10-10, 01:54 PM

Is it, if the wizard has hit the beastie with a couple of Enervates, a Ray of Enfeeblement or two, a couple of Doom-type spells swiped from the cleric list, Dispelled the beastie's buffs, and hit the beastie a couple of times with mind-affecting lose-your-next-action type spells? And [i]summon monster[i]'ed up something to flank the beastie? Is letting Mr. Beatstick do the bulk of the actual HP damage that much to ask?

Unequal contribution is unequal contribution, no matter who's in charge.

ryu

2013-10-10, 01:54 PM

Is it, if the wizard has hit the beastie with a couple of Enervates, a Ray of Enfeeblement or two, a couple of Doom-type spells swiped from the cleric list, Dispelled the beastie's buffs, and hit the beastie a couple of times with mind-affecting lose-your-next-action type spells? And [i]summon monster[i]'ed up something to flank the beastie? Is letting Mr. Beatstick do the bulk of the actual HP damage that much to ask?

That's kinda already often more or less the case. Considering the spells you point to the wiz still wouldn't need ol' beatstick.

Psyren

2013-10-10, 01:55 PM

No it isn't. All you've done is change the passive player from the fighter to the wizard.

Debuffing and BFC are active roles that still let the fighter be active. Even blasting, provided it's not optimized to the 9 Hells and back so you can one-shot everything.

johnbragg

2013-10-10, 02:01 PM

That's kinda already often more or less the case. Considering the spells you point to the wiz still wouldn't need ol' beatstick.

Somebody's gotta do the actual HP damage.

ryu

2013-10-10, 02:08 PM

Somebody's gotta do the actual HP damage.

Which is. Often already the case. People just let the fighters play janitor with incapacitated enemies. Hell his job could be done at low levels by a child improvised weaponing a rock. At higher levels the rock needs to be polished masterwork and force enchanted to bypass dr but it's still a kid with a rock.

Psyren

2013-10-10, 02:17 PM

Which is. Often already the case. People just let the fighters play janitor with incapacitated enemies. Hell his job could be done at low levels by a child improvised weaponing a rock. At higher levels the rock needs to be polished masterwork and force enchanted to bypass dr but it's still a kid with a rock.

If your casters can perfectly incapacitate every single enemy in the battlefield in every fight then your DM's encounter design is at fault.

For example, at low levels - why are the goblins charging the party in a 10' square formation, or lining up in a 15' cone?

johnbragg

2013-10-10, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by johnbragg View Post
Somebody's gotta do the actual HP damage./quote]
[QUOTE=ryu;16192839]Which is. Often already the case. People just let the fighters play janitor with incapacitated enemies. Hell his job could be done at low levels by a child improvised weaponing a rock. At higher levels the rock needs to be polished masterwork and force enchanted to bypass dr but it's still a kid with a rock.

Unless of course the wizard is casting Disintegrate, or Summoning high level monsters, or Dominating one of the bad guys to do it, or turning Flesh to Stone. There's got to be a way to balance it so that the best ways for casters to do direct damage are less effective than a well-built beatstick.

LordBlades

2013-10-10, 02:21 PM

Somebody's gotta do the actual HP damage.

Sad thing is a 2nd wizard can probably do HP damage better, and do other things as well.

That's the real problem IMO: fighter needs wizard to buff him/incapacitate enemies/whatever to contribute. A 2nd wizard can achieve just as good or better levels of contributing without the need for any outside resources.

ryu

2013-10-10, 02:25 PM

If your casters can perfectly incapacitate every single enemy in the battlefield in every fight then your DM's encounter design is at fault.

For example, at low levels - why are the goblins charging the party in a 10' square formation, or lining up in a 15' cone?

Because the dm caught on to the fact that I could easily run into the gaps, wait for them to surround and close before preempting any attack with a jaunt before controlling them pointless on my next turn. Why does that trick work? Goblins are stupid and none have lived through it to tell others.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-10, 02:27 PM

Debuffing and BFC are active roles that still let the fighter be active. Even blasting, provided it's not optimized to the 9 Hells and back so you can one-shot everything.

Which is not what he said.

Psyren

2013-10-10, 02:37 PM

Which is not what he said.

I know; I was more directing that at him, because he was responding to my statement that Merlin helps Arthur. Whether Merlin hits Arthur with Bull's Strength or he hits the enemy with Ray of Enfeeblement, he's still helping; one is simply more active than the other.

Sad thing is a 2nd wizard can probably do HP damage better, and do other things as well.

That's the real problem IMO: fighter needs wizard to buff him/incapacitate enemies/whatever to contribute. A 2nd wizard can achieve just as good or better levels of contributing without the need for any outside resources.

If your party consists of 2 wizards with no melee at low-mid levels and the DM can't find ways to challenge them, he should probably hang up his hat.

Because the dm caught on to the fact that I could easily run into the gaps, wait for them to surround and close before preempting any attack with a jaunt before controlling them pointless on my next turn. Why does that trick work? Goblins are stupid and none have lived through it to tell others.

This assumes they're all melee (goblins carry javelins, remember?) plus kobolds certainly won't fall for it, neither will hobgoblins etc.

johnbragg

2013-10-10, 02:38 PM

Which is not what he said.

At least not the second time. When I said "the wizard buffs the fighter who kills the beastie with his beatstick.", that was putting the wizard in a very secondary role.

But my point is there are plenty of ways for casters to be critical to the fight while infringing a lot less on the fighter-types specialty, which is dealing direct damage and/or making things be dead.

ryu

2013-10-10, 02:52 PM

If the mooks are ranged why bother bringing up charging? That's like bringing up bayonets in a sniper fight.

Psyren

2013-10-10, 03:11 PM

If the mooks are ranged why bother bringing up charging? That's like bringing up bayonets in a sniper fight.

I don't recall bringing up charging - but, barring terrain issues, charging is a good counter to a foe trying to stay at range at hit your casters from afar.

In any event, the point was that a DM that lets the wizard player repeatedly end encounters with a single spell is being lazy and lacking in creativity.

ryu

2013-10-10, 03:13 PM

Eh. Stop the usual methods I'll come up with new ones. That goblin trick took all of five seconds to think up for example.

eggynack

2013-10-10, 03:23 PM

If your party consists of 2 wizards with no melee at low-mid levels and the DM can't find ways to challenge them, he should probably hang up his hat.

If your party consists of any variety of classes, in any quantities, at any levels, and the DM can't find ways to challenge them, he should probably hang up his hat. Encounters are modular, and balance is relative. I guess the question is whether the two wizard party would be better or worse against a specific given encounter than the wizard and fighter party, and my guess is that the wizards would do better at the majority of levels.

Psyren

2013-10-10, 03:29 PM

Eh. Stop the usual methods I'll come up with new ones. That goblin trick took all of five seconds to think up for example.

You mean you'll have to - gasp - vary your tactics? Unthinkable!

But I don't care if you win - the game is designed with the assumption that you'll win, after all - what I do care about is you doing it in one round with one spell. If that is the norm, then I am failing as a DM.

ryu

2013-10-10, 03:41 PM

You mean you'll have to - gasp - vary your tactics? Unthinkable!

But I don't care if you win - the game is designed with the assumption that you'll win, after all - what I do care about is you doing it in one round with one spell. If that is the norm, then I am failing as a DM.

Here's a tip to all DMs who have players like me that they want to challenge. CR? Ranged battle? Being surrounded? Big enemy damage numbers? All of that is meaningless in all but the lowest of levels. You know what reaches parity with a wizard being a wizard instead of a blaster? Another wizard ALSO being a wizard. Then it comes down to which side thought of more/better contingency plans. Same thing with other decent casters. This is the natural result of the world as dictated by the way magic works. Challenging the wizard isn't hard. Trying to do so with the same rabble that plays with a fighter is nonsense on an almost basic level past level five.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-10, 03:43 PM

with the same rabble that plays with a fighter

Congratulations on losing all credibility and welcome to my ignore list!

ryu

2013-10-10, 04:06 PM

Fair enough. I'll do the same to prevent us from coming into conflict in the future.

Psyren

2013-10-10, 04:18 PM

Here's a tip to all DMs who have players like me that they want to challenge.

Give up and play Munchkin? :smalltongue:

Dude, I've literally seen you admit that you almost exclusively play Tippy-style games. The chances of a DM (especially me) having players like that is thankfully remote. If playing like that makes you feel like you've won D&D somehow, knock yourself out!

ryu

2013-10-10, 04:27 PM

Give up and play Munchkin? :smalltongue:

Dude, I've literally seen you admit that you almost exclusively play Tippy-style games. The chances of a DM (especially me) having players like that is thankfully remote. If playing like that makes you feel like you've won D&D somehow, knock yourself out!

It's not about ''winning'' DnD. It's the thrill of the fight. I don't feel satisfied in that thrill if I feel like I'm constantly holding back the vast majority of what I'm capable of and the DM is tailoring the fights to make sure I survive. Give me a tier 1 any day. Make the enemy tier 1 too, and not in name only either. Don't pass me fights you don't think can challenge what a wizard is or I will find my own. I'm also fine with dying in game. I'd just make another wizard and do better next time. If that means the only way to play is to challenge other wizards to fights than so be it. All lower power fights just kind of feel boring, even samey, to me after how long I played the temple of elemental evil years ago.

johnbragg

2013-10-10, 05:03 PM

It's not about ''winning'' DnD. It's the thrill of the fight. I don't feel satisfied in that thrill if I feel like I'm constantly holding back the vast majority of what I'm capable of and the DM is tailoring the fights to make sure I survive.

Do you think you'd enjoy playing in a tweaked system where access to level 5+ spells was rare-to-nonexistent, but you got ample 1st level spells to play with? Do you think you'd have fun optimizing an alt-wizard's list of 1st level at-will spells? Meanwhile enemy casters would be under the same limits, and would be trying to counter-optimize?

Or would that bore you?

Give me a tier 1 any day. Make the enemy tier 1 too, and not in name only either. Don't pass me fights you don't think can challenge what a wizard is or I will find my own. I'm also fine with dying in game. I'd just make another wizard and do better next time. If that means the only way to play is to challenge other wizards to fights than so be it. All lower power fights just kind of feel boring, even samey, to me after how long I played the temple of elemental evil years ago.

ryu

2013-10-10, 05:14 PM

Do you think you'd enjoy playing in a tweaked system where access to level 5+ spells was rare-to-nonexistent, but you got ample 1st level spells to play with? Do you think you'd have fun optimizing an alt-wizard's list of 1st level at-will spells? Meanwhile enemy casters would be under the same limits, and would be trying to counter-optimize?

Or would that bore you?

While it is a legitimately fair fight without having to hold back, that gets rid of most of the other half of why I like tier 1 gameplay. There's no room in that kind of system for the inherent silliness tier 1s killing each other brings. It is still better than the basic assumptions the designers had when making 3.5 though, and you'd probably please a great deal of people in games like that. I just enjoy a system wherein I can add insult to injury on slain enemies by throwing their corpses into various forms of deadly celestial bodies such as suns, black holes, quasars, and the odd planet still in the phase where it's covered in molten rock. It's a respectable idea mind you. It's just not my scene.

Vortenger

2013-10-10, 05:25 PM

That's pretty much impossible to prove right. Or wrong for that matter. So far nobody has been able to produce an 'average D&D player' for us to look at.

In part. We can't assume the average player, but we can aggregate based on optimization levels.

We have relatively well defined idea of high-op and low-op around here. We have a consensus that most players find tier 3 and 4 to be about right for their play styles. Using a basic bell curve we can infer that most players will be somewhere in the mid-op range. Ryu, for example tells us he plays in Emperor Tippy level games, whom is a well known high end optimizer. If you play in games such as these, then it is reasonable to assume you do not play the same style of game as the average player. If you and your group are fresh to the game and don't understand the mechanics behind it, you're not playing up to the potential of the average, more experienced player.

Most of us here are beyond average due to the fact we are regularly discussing rules, synergies, dysfunctions, etc. The average player does not likely haunt specialized game forums for a game they are not looking to master. Thus, it is indeed unlikely that the average player would bother researching the tiers at all.